Our client received a request for evidence, questioning its ability to pay all beneficiaries it petitioned for. We reviewed the company’s tax returns and other relevant financials, and demonstrated to USCIS that the unique totality of circumstances of this particular employer warranted approval. We furnished evidence, including information about the company’s background, its activities and ongoing contracts, and commentary, analyzing the entity’s cash flow metrics, in support. The case was approved after three months.
Employment Based Green Cards Sample Cases
We filed a Form I-140 petition for a professional cricketer in the EB1A category. This immigration preference category is for foreign nationals of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. After receiving an RFE questioning the applicant’s eligibility, we responded with documentation evidencing that the applicant has a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. We submitted substantial documentary evidence to show that he qualifies, under several of the explicit and implicit criteria enumerated in the regulations. The petition was subsequently approved.
We won a case for an applicant following receipt of a Request for Evidence. We submitted evidence to show that the beneficiary qualified for the category having published scholarly articles, authored a book chapter and acted as the judge of her peers. We noted the impact factor for the journals where her work was published and provided citations details. We provided evidence to show that she was a member of an editorial board. The RFE noted Service’s request for confirmation of the permanent job offer. The university’s employee handbook noted that the position was in fact “permanent” and renewable indefinitely. We provided a letter from the university that also confirmed her position was in fact permanent in nature.
We won a case for an applicant following a Request for Evidence. Initially, we had submitted substantial documentation to show that the Petitioner qualified for the classification based on his original contributions, authorship of scholarly articles and judging of his research peers. Based on the evidence submitted, Service noted that sufficient evidence was presented to prove authorship of scholarly articles as well as judging of research peers. We had provided copies of the Petitioner’s publications as well as the significant number of citations. The journals where Petitioner’s work was published had average to high impact factors. Petitioner was a member of an editorial board as well as a reviewer for a multitude of international publications. We submitted documentary evidence of his work as a reviewer which included an invitation to the editorial board as well as copies of the requests to review manuscripts for several prestigious scientific journals. Service issued an RFE requesting additional documentary evidence to show that Petitioner’s research contributions were “original” and of major significance. We provided additional reference letters from leading experts who noted their own use of Petitioner’s inventions. We also provided proof of the application of Petitioner’s invention such as internal memos, letters and emails.
We have received a series of reversals and remands from the USCIS appeals office (“AAO”) where we had argued that the USCIS had erroneously and illegally revoked approved I-140 petitions. The grounds of appeal in the cases involved:
Failure to prove qualifications of employee because the documentation of experience was insufficient;
Successorship-in-interest of companies, where one company was acquired by another;
Legality of “roving jobs,” consulting positions that require periodic relocation.
The revocation of the I-140s have been reversed and USCIS has been asked to revisit their decision. We are by no means out of the woods yet, but at least we are vindicated in our understanding that these decisions were against law and policy.
We filed a petition premium processing for a self-petitioning researcher. The petitioner had over 15 years of research experience in the nanotechnology field. He had an extraordinary research career which included 52 scholarly scientific articles with over 1,020 citations of his work. His publications were featured in numerous high impact international journals. In addition to his noteworthy research publications, the petitioner was a highly sought after reviewer for a multitude of prestigious, international scientific journals. He was also selected to an editorial board. His research was noted as having a significant impact in his field and the multitude of leading experts that opined on his international acclaim identified him as “one of the very few in their field that had reached the highest level of achievement.” The petitioner had sustained international acclaim for his extraordinary research and as a result his work was featured in several major trade publications. We also submitted evidence to show that as a result of the petitioner’s extraordinary research career he was nominated as a member of a highly prestigious scientific research society.
As a result of the petitioner’s substantial volume of evidence reflecting his extraordinary qualifications, USCIS approved the case within five days.
How does one prove that five years’ experience gained while working for one employer, with one job title is progressively responsible in nature?
That issue was key in a recent EB-2, I-140 petition. USCIS issued a Request For Evidence (RFE) alleging that although the employee had the requisite experience, he had failed to establish that his experience had grown progressively responsible after receipt of his Bachelor’s degree.
Note that a requirement of EB-2 category is that the foreign worker must possess a Bachelor’s degree and 5 years of progressively responsible, post-bachelor’s experience. So, unless we are able to prove that the experience is “progressively responsible,” we would lose our EB-2 case. The complication here was that all five years of experience were with same employer and the same job title. It took considerable investigation and understanding of the IT field, but we could see that the experience was indeed progressive. Accordingly, we responded with a significant amount of evidence, including employment letters, affidavits, and pay stubs. We also presented several cases and legal arguments that backed our position.
The petition was approved in less than two weeks.
We represented a consulting company and their employee, a Senior Quality Assurance Analyst. USDOL had denied PERM certification after an audit holding that we had failed to submit tear sheets from our Sunday advertisements. We filed the appropriate motion establishing that it was highly likely, if not certain, that the tear sheets were in fact submitted. We provided evidence from our files, affidavits, and proof of our firm’s normal business practice.The case was approved in less than three weeks.
We represented a technology consulting services corporation and a Senior Programmer Analyst employed by the firm. We submitted electronically the applicant’s labor certification (PERM) to the USDOL. They denied certification without a request for explanation or audit. The USDOL denial alleged that the employer was required to show on the ETA 9089 (the PERM form) what methodology was used for the foreign degree evaluation. We responded with appropriatemotion showing that this was clearly government error and a violation of due process. The forms provide no way of stating this information. We further presented several legal arguments and cases in support of our clearly justified position. Unfortunately, there is no way to spare anguish and uncertainty inflicted upon our clients, but USDOL did recognize the error and moved to correct it.
The case was approved within four weeks.
We represented a physician working for a healthcare network within several counties of a Medically Underserved Area (MUA). Initially, we submitted the required documents, but the tricky issue was the division of the physician’s service over several counties. The approval in this case required that we work closely with officials from the State Health Department to provide proper documentation and verification of the full-time nature of the job, albeit across several areas and proof of physician shortage within each area. At the I-140 stage of the NIW, USCIS issued a relatively minor Request for Evidence requesting a recently dated full-time employment contract listing the full, required period of service.