We won a case for an applicant who primarily served as a function manager, but also managed a few professionals. We provided extensive details regarding the job duties of the beneficiary for both the foreign entity position as well as the proposed US position. We outlined the proposed duties in detail and assigned a percentage to each task indicating how much time was allotted to complete the task. We also provided the names, titles and job duty descriptions of staff members that would relieve the beneficiary of non-managerial tasks. The beneficiary was an integral part of the U.S. operations and worked closely with the Petitioner’s CIO and CEO. We were able to show that the applicant had discretionary managerial decision making authority that significantly impacted the U.S. operations.
Immigration.com Sample Cases
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.
An L-1A visa can be obtained for an international manager or executive who manages other professionals or who manages an important function of the organization (“functional manager”). Historically, it has been difficult to obtain L-1A for functional managers. USCIS is more esily convinced where professional employees are being managed.
We had a case for a Sales Manager from India being relocated by his European HQ to work in the USA. The company is several-thousand employee strong internationally, but has a low head count in the USA. USCIS sent an RFE that showed they were not convinced that the position was high enough in the hierarchy or managerial enough to be qualified as a manager or an executive under the L-A status. We responded with detailed explanation and evidence of the importance of the position, and that USCIS had neglected to consider that the position clearly qualified as a functional manager. USCIS approved the case.
We have received an approval for an O-1 for a pharmaceuticals scientist employed by a small company. The case was approved without an RFE where we clearly showed the advanced nature of the work and the qualifications of the beneficiary. The outcome of O-1 visa petitions is always unpredictable, and, as a practical matter, more so where the employer is a very small company. Despite its size, the company was engaged in highly specialized and advanced level work. In addition to the beneficiary’s qualifications, the nature of the work was probably decisive in tipping the balance in our favor.
We have received approval of both an L-1A petition and L-1A visa stamping for a managerial employee of a small business from India. The business in India consists of five employees and is completely different from the business they are starting in the USA. Normally, small businesses present much difficulty for L-1A approvals – the key issue being why does a small business need an employee at the level of an executive or manager. Nevertheless, we were able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of both USCIS and the Consulate that this is a genuine business venture.
Intrested business people may want to view the information on this page: http://www.immigration.com/visa/l-visa/l-visa-overview
And these Videos on our YouTube channel: Doing Business in The USA
We were asked to provide a second opinion on a complicated case where the US consulate had denied a green card based upon a finding that the beneficiary/applicant had committed visa fraud where they had earlier misused a visa. The consulate directed the applicant to file for a waiver (which is quite difficult to obtain). Note that a finding of fraud is a permanent bar from entering the USA.
When we reviewed the file, it appeared to be quite clear that the finding of fraud was unjustified. A “misuse” of a visa is not by itself fraud, unless some lies or deception were involved. So, our recommendation to our clients was to fight the fraud finding, for which we were then retained. Well, after several rounds of argument lasting over a year with the consulate and the Washington, DC office in charge of the consulates, finally, this morning, we have received the approval of the green card.
We represented a client and her minor child. They had filed their I-485 applications as derivative applicants. Two months after the I-485 filing, the primary applicant, her husband died in a tragic accident. USCIS requested biometrics for all applicants, but she did not appear because she was informed that her I-485 application would not survive the death of the primary applicant. We filed a motion to reopen the case, showing that the applicant was and is legally entitled to survivor benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. USCIS reopened the case for the applicant and her minor child in approximately six weeks. Her I-485 has been reinstated.
We represented an IT consulting company and a Senior Software Engineer employed by them from the point forward where they received an RFE. USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) questioning accreditation of the Indian universities where the applicant received his degrees. We researched the universities in question and documented that both are highly regarded and world renowned institutions. Additionally, we received an expert opinion that noted that both universities were accredited at the time the applicant received his degrees. In our response, we pointed out that there is more than one relevant accreditation body in India and both universities in question were and are recognized by the Indian government. The case was approved in about two weeks.
We represented an applicant after his application for naturalization was denied. He had obtained permanent resident status through marriage with a U.S. citizen. Applicant’s Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, was denied because of a failure to meet the good moral character requirement. USCIS questioned the veracity of applicant’s marriage, and therefore the basis of his Green Card approval. Strangely enough, this issue was raised at the naturalization stage. We procured various items of evidence attesting to the genuineness of applicant’s marriage, and established that although applicant’s job required frequent travel and relocation, his marriage was entered into in good faith. We emphasized that USCIS must take into view the unique circumstances of the applicant’s life. Applicant was granted a hearing before an officer, and received his N-400 approval within eight weeks.
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.