Immigration.com Sample Cases

These are some sample cases from our files. It is impossible for us to present all have done past over 15 years of our practice. But these were some cases that came to mind when we started writing this column 2-3 years ago.
Type of Case: H-4 - Derivative Visa
Category: H-4 Visa
Status: H-4 status approved

We filed a case against the USCIS where the H-1B visa holder attempted to maintain legal status for both him and his H-4 dependents.  The attorney at the time filed the application for the H-1 extension, but neglected to submit applications for the extension of the H-4 dependents status.  We submitted a request to USCIS for the extensions of the H-4 dependents' status with a detailed legal brief. USCIS granted the request for extension and the I-94's were attached to the approval notices. 

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Category: H-4 Visa
Status: H-4 status approved

We filed a case with USCIS where the H-4 dependents of the H-1 visa holder were out of status since 2000.  They believed that they were in legal status as long as the H-1 visa holder maintained status in the US.  We filed a request for an extension of their H-4 status accompanied by a brief in support of the application.  USCIS granted the extension of stay and issued approval notices with the I-94's attached.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Type of Case: H-4 - Derivative Visa
Category: H-4 Visa
Status: H-4 status approved retroactively .

We filed a case on behalf of our client against USCIS where the H-4 dependents' application for a change status was denied by USCIS because the application was not filed in a timely manner.  The dependents were Citizens of Canada who wanted to transfer from TN status to H-4 status.  Due to circumstances beyond their control they were found by USCIS to have lost their lawful status in the U.S.  We filed a Motion for Reconsideration with USCIS.  USCIS approved the application and the applicants were granted H-4 status retroactively. 

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Category: H-1 Visa
Status: H-1B extension approved.

We have filed no less than 200 cases where USCIS had denied the application or objected to an application based on the fact that the title and position did not require professional level employees.  So far, we have won almost all the cases we have filed on motions to reopen or as new filings.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Category: H-1 Visa
Status: H-1B extension approved.

The consulate revoked an H-1B in 1999. The client received notification of the revocation from USCIS in 2004.  In the mean time he was still working in USA.  We argued against these inconsistent and unconstitutional procedures and submitted an application for extension of his status in 2004.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Category: H-1 Visa
Status: The Beneficiary’s I-129 petition was approved shortly after we filed the Response.

Our client, an electronic document management company was issued Intent to Revoke from the Texas Service Center.  Our client had filed an H-1B for the Beneficiary, which was approved by the Service.  However, the American Consulate subsequently revoked the petition following an interview with Beneficiary.  The Consular Officer determined that the Beneficiary was not qualified to work as a Systems Analyst.  Specifically, the Consular Officer claimed that Beneficiary did not have the requisite university-level coursework in Computer Science. 

The Petitioner sought the Beneficiary for the position of Systems Analyst because of Beneficiary’s extensive education and background in medicine.  The Petitioner needed a Systems Analyst to develop electronic medical records management software.  The Consular Officer erred by assuming that the Beneficiary should have the same qualifications as a computer programmer.  The foregoing arguments were developed in a lengthy Response to the Intent to Revoke, which was submitted to the Service.  In addition, we argued that the Consular Officer was not supposed to readjudicate the petition, and in this regard he erred.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Category: H-1 Visa
Status: The case was approved by USCIS with the I-94 attached.

We were recently retained to address a strange problem. An H-1 petition was approved, but the parties did not receive the approval notice for two years. The notice was apparently lost in the mail. They submitted an application for a duplicate approval notice, which also was issued and also lost in the mail. The employer then filed an application for an extension of status, which was granted without an I-94 attached to it. CIS considered the beneficiary to be out of status, because the employer had not placed the beneficiary on their payroll for two years. We submitted a motion to reconsider to USCIS as well as a supplemental brief together with an application for extension of H-1 status pointing out the legal implications of CIS decision.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Type of Case: F-1 Visa
Category: F-1 Visa
Status: F-1 visa granted.

We were approached by the parents of an applicant whose application for an F-1 visa had been denied based on Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (possible immigrant).Normally, we would have not been able to do much.  But in this case, the visa applicant had already visited USA three times in the past and left in time.While it was true that her entire family lived in USA, the fact remained that she had never violated any US laws, despite having an opportunity to do so. We filed for reconsideration.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Type of Case: B-1/B-2 Visa
Category: B-2 Visa, B-1 Visa
Status: B-1/B-2 visa granted.

We requested a reconsideration of a B-1/B-2 visa denial by a US Consulate in India. The applicant and his wife applied for visa to visit their son in the U.S. The wife was granted a 10 year multiple entry visa, but the husband's application was denied based on Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (possible immigrant). This obviously made no sense. Why would one of the husband-wife applicants be denied while the other one granted the visa?  We requested reconsideration, fully explaining the circumstances in his favor and providing further proof.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Category: Litigation
Status: The Defendants settled the case before submitting an answer to the complaint. Accordingly, USDOL issued a duplicate labor certification in favor of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Immigrant Petition (Form I-140) was approved within a few weeks.

Our client's original approved labor certification was lost in the mail. We tried numerous times to get a duplicate copy of the approved labor certification from the Department of Labor (USDOL) but couldn't get it from the USDOL. USCIS attempted to obtain a copy and informed us that they were making the attempt. We saw no results. So, we filed a lawsuit against the USDOL, USCIS and others (Defendants) alleging, among other matters, that under the law, USDOL should issue a duplicate labor certification within a reasonable time. In our complaint, we sought redress under the Administrative Procedure and Mandamus laws for defendants' failure to issue a duplicate labor certification.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.

Pages