About Us Sample Cases from our office

We filed an H-1B extension petition for a software consulting and professional services firm on behalf of a software architect requesting status and work authorization for a duration of three years. The extension was, however, approved for a duration much shorter than requested and the approval notice was both dated and received after the shorter validity period had already expired, thereby destroying the legal status of the employee and causing him to accrue unlawful presence. We immediately proceeded to file another H-1B extension petition, which was approved, but the extension of status within the U.S. was denied because the employee was “out of status.” These circumstances would have otherwise caused the employee to accrue unlawful presence, subjecting him to a bar from the U.S., and with no choice but to leave the U.S. with his family,  and apply for visa stamping abroad during the beginning stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, when international travel was highly inadvisable. With U.S. consulates abroad being closed during this time, the employee’s ability to work would also be interrupted for an indeterminate amount of time. We filed a  lawsuit against the government to have the employee’s extension of stay approved within ten days in order to prevent the employee from accruing unlawful presence. However, due to the urgency of the matter, and shortly thereafter, we filed a preliminary injunction motion to compel the court to hastily render a decision and preserve the employee’s status in the U.S. After filing the motion, and discussing the case with the government attorney, the government settled the case. The employee immediately received an extension of his status in the U.S. for the entire requested duration, allowing him to stay in the U.S. and continue working.

Status: The employee immediately received an extension of his status in the U.S. for the entire requested duration, allowing him to stay in the U.S. and continue working.

We filed an H-1B petition for a company that provides IT related services, on behalf of the beneficiary, a  software developer. An RFE was subsequently issued, responded to and then denied as failing to prove that petitioner established that sufficient speciality occupation work was available and that the position qualified as a specialty occupation. We filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Office, the appeal was sustained and the petition was remanded back for issuance of an approval notice. During the following months multiple attempts were made by counsel and petitioner to determine and expedite the processing of the approval notice. After approximately six months of delay in issuance of the notice, we filed a complaint with a United States District Court. We were able to successfully argue that this was an unreasonable delay. The case was settled and approximately ten days after filing the case the approval notice was issued.

Status: We were able to successfully argue that this was an unreasonable delay. The case was settled and approximately ten days after filing the case the approval notice was issued.

We responded to a Form I-485 Request for Evidence to prove that approximately a decade ago the permanent residency applicant had, in fact, attended two U.S. universities as he had claimed in previously approved petitions. Both universities had been certified by ICE under its Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) during the applicant’s attendance. Subsequent to his having transferred from one university to the other, from which the applicant then obtained a graduate degree, and after he no longer had any association with either universities, ICE withdrew its SEVP certification from both universities. The documents requested by USCIS dated back to over a decade. Fortunately the applicant had retained many documents that indicated he had in fact attended both universities and relied upon the universities and their Designated School Officials who administer the SEVP and provide information and guidance to the students. We also pointed out to the government that even if USCIS found that the applicant had violated his visa status he remained eligible for an exemption under the regulations  and that  discretionary approval was warranted in this case. While we were unable to provide all documents required given the time that had lapsed, a few weeks after filing, the applicant’s Green Card was approved.

Status: While we were unable to provide all documents required given the time that had lapsed, a few weeks after filing, the applicant’s Green Card was approved.

We filed an H-1B extension petition for a small software company that offers customer software and technology solutions to the local clientele. USCIS approved the classification portion of the petition, but denied the portion of the petition requesting an extension of stay. USCIS stated that beneficiary had failed to maintain his nonimmigrant status because his H-1B status had expired prior to the filing of the H-1B extension petition and he was only  in an authorized period of stay because of a pending extension request from the previous employer. We filed a lawsuit with a United States District Court. We argued that in denying the period of authorized stay, while the previously filed H-1B was pending, USCIS misinterpreted their own regulation. The case was settled in a few weeks and the petition was approved with extension of stay and for the entire requested duration without a gap in the employee’s status.

Status: The case was settled in a few weeks and the petition was approved with extension of stay and for the entire requested duration without a gap in the employee’s status.