Our client, a citizen of Taiwan had filed an employment-based adjustment of status application. The Plaintiff's adjustment of status had been pending with the USCIS California Service Center for almost three and one half years. USCIS did not adjudicate his adjustment of status application since they could not get the name check clearance from the FBI. We filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and others including the FBI to compel these agencies to adjudicate Plaintiff's AOS application. The case was filed under the Mandamus and Administrative Procedure Acts.
Immigration.com Sample Cases
Our client, a citizen of China had filed an adjustment of status application on the basis of marriage to a U.S. Citizen. The Plaintiff's adjustment of status had been pending with the USCIS for almost three years. USCIS did not adjudicate her adjustment of status application since they could not get the name check clearance from the FBI. We filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and others including the FBI to compel these agencies to adjudicate Plaintiff's AOS application. The case was filed under the Mandamus and Administrative Procedure Acts.
Our client’s derivative-based Adjustment of Status (AOS) application was denied. USCIS stated in its denial that the applicant had been out of lawful nonimmigrant status for more than an aggregate amount of 180 days. We filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and others (Defendants) alleging, inter alia, that our client (the Plaintiff) would have been out of lawful nonimmigrant status for less than an aggregate amount of 180 days had the Defendants adjudicated Plaintiff’s earlier H-1 petition as of the filing date. In addition, Defendants failed to adjudicate a nonimmigrant visa extension that the Plaintiff filed prior to the H-1 petition. In our complaint, we sought redress under the Administrative Procedure and Mandamus Acts for DHS’s failure to approve Plaintiff’s H-1 application nunc-pro-tunc. In addition, we claimed that the Defendants’ denial of Plaintiff’s AOS application was arbitrary, capricious, and unjust.
Our client retained us as legal counsel in order to compel the USCIS to grant an Employment-Based Adjustment of Status (AOS) Application. The Plaintiff's case had been on file with USCIS almost three years before he sought our assistance.
Prior to filing the AOS application, Plaintiff filed an I-140 petition on his own behalf, which USCIS approved. The Plaintiff is a professor of science with extraordinary ability as defined under the first preference category of employment-based priority workers. We filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and others to compel these agencies to adjudicate Plaintiff's AOS application. The case was filed under the Mandamus and Administrative Procedure Acts.
We won a case for a Ph.D. in Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems – Geomatic Engineering. He had over eight years of teaching experience and ten years of research experience. His unique background landed him a position abroad as a critical member of a high-level research team. We provided documentary evidence to show the applicant’s qualifications, which included publications, media articles, citations and letters of invitation to present his innovative work. The applicant had extensive evidence to show the impact of his contributions to his field. Evidence covered a lengthy period of time reflecting the years of highly specialized training and experience gained by the applicant. We submitted letters of recommendation from high-ranking officials who had formerly worked with the applicant on various projects. We also showed that his expertise was world-renowned and thus was invited as a guest editor for a prestigious scientific journal.
We won a case for a Ph.D. in computer science/engineering who had over nine years of experience. The applicant held various positions at highly prestigious research institutes in the world. His expertise was considered a cut above the rest and therefore ranked as one of the top in his field. He was a noted author for several scientific journals and posted many conference publications, technical reports and book chapters. He was the recipient of notable awards for extraordinary achievement. He also conducted peer reviewing of manuscripts for prestigious international journals and conferences. He was also often called upon for oral presentations and seminars, which resulted in extensive international collaborations. He also served as peer reviewer, committee organizing member, and graduate supervising committee member. In addition, he was a member of 2 prestigious professional societies. He was well known in his field for numerous innovative and pioneering discoveries.
We won this case following a response to a Request for Evidence. Service requested further clarification on the "permanency" of the job offer, which was with a University. We submitted an official job offer letter as well as the copies of the university personnel manual and administrative handbook. Service had requested additional evidence to show "international reputation" of the applicant. We submitted various letters from leading experts from around the world that described the outstanding work performed by the applicant and its significant impact on the field. Service also requested further clarification on criteria for the awards received by the applicant as well as the membership qualification for her professional memberships. We submitted documentary evidence outlining the criteria meeting Services' requirements.
To give you folks an idea of what gets through easily. We won a case for a chemist with over 14 years of teaching and research experience. This applicant was the author of over 63 peer-reviewed research publications and presented his work at 17 conferences and symposia. He was also invited to present at a multitude of seminars. This applicant authored 5 book chapters and technical proceedings. He qualified for the category based on his extensive publication record as well as his acting as a judge of others' work. He performed peer reviews of manuscripts for Journal American Chemical Society, Journal Physical Chemistry and Journal of Computational Chemistry and participated as an organizer/coordinator for various international conferences. He also received prestigious fellowship awards and was featured in Marquis Who's Who in Science and Engineering.
This applicant had over 5 years of industry experience and 8 years of research experience. He was offered a job with a private company conducting antennae and microwave engineering research. His unique skills set him apart from other researchers in the field and as a result he received several significant awards for his outstanding achievement. He also published for the prestigious society, IEEE. We were able to provide documentary evidence to show his industry contributions with significant impact as well as his noted publications in prestigious international scientific journals with notable impact factors. This applicant was able to produce documentation to show that he qualified under several components of the category including publications, awards of distinction, selection as a judge of others' work, professional memberships in societies that require nomination, and significant contributions to the field including patents.
We won a case for a Materials Scientist who had over 11 years of research experience. His expertise was in the field of solar and hydrogen powered energy. We provided documentary evidence to show that his extensive list of publications was in prestigious international journals with high impact factors. We also showed that as a result of his innovative and pioneering work, he was invited to present his findings at a large number of conferences/workshops and symposia. This applicant also qualified under contributions to his field, as he not only published significant work, but also collaborated with many prestigious research institutes around the world. He also received over 5 notable awards with very competitive criteria and was the recipient of numerous grant awards. We were able to provide substantial documentary evidence to show that this applicant published, contributed, received national and international awards of distinction and was called upon as a leading expert to judge the work of others.