We have won a series of cases where USCIS had earlier held that unpaid employment under OPT was legally unacceptable to maintain status. We have argued that such holding is contrary to all law, policy and precedence. Students are NOT required to engage in PAID employment. All these cases were won after we filed our briefs pursuant to Motions to Reopen (MTR).
Immigration.com Sample Cases
We have received a particularly remarkable green card approval a few weeks ago. USCIS alleged fraud and denied the green card where the spouse of a US citizen had entered the US on visa waiver and then applied for Adjustment of Status (AOS) within a few days after entry. We were retained once the green card had been denied. The allegations of fraud or misrepresentation are particularly troublesome because they operate as a PERMANENT bar against immigration. There is a narrowly tailored waiver available, but it can be difficult to obtain. We filed a Motion to Reopen the denied AOS and applied for a new AOS with the waiver request. Here comes the tricky part -- the waiver request form requires us to concede that we have committed fraud. That was untrue. Our clients had acted innocently. USCIS was of the opinion we must checkmark the box on the waiver form that admits to fraud. I refused to permit that. The reason: if we admit fraud under penalty of perjury, and that admission is false; would that admission not amount to perjury and perhaps fraud? We were willing to take this matter to court. We had sufficient evidence on the record indicating innocence. To our relief, USCIS approved the AOS without further inquiry. PS Note that entering the US on any short term visa (except K visas and dual intent visas like H-1, L-1, etc. – I have a blog entry on what are dual intent visas) and trying to convert to a long term visa or green card can be viewed with suspicion by USCIS. From: Rajiv. Click HERE to watch a video on this discussion. Adjustment of Status Form I-130 Form I-485 ESTA Fraud/Misrepresentation Waiver Engineers
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.
The main applicant and his wife filed their I-485 petitions together. At the time of filing, the wife was pregnant. In regards to the required medical examination, there are certain vaccinations that should not be given during pregnancy as they could affect the fetus. After the birth of the baby, the mother is then able to return to the doctor and get the vaccinations that are required the GC process. In this case, the mother’s intention was to breast feed her baby for at least 2 years. They wanted to apply for a waiver of the vaccinations of any kind because she didn't want to get them while breast feeding, regardless of what the doctor said about vaccinations being safe for the nursing baby. We were able to get the I-485 approved for both the main applicant and wife without receiving an RFE or having to file the waiver.
Our office was retained to file a B-1/B-2 extension on behalf of a 34-year old male who was diagnosed with autism and requires ongoing supervision and monitoring. He is dependent on his mother, a permanent resident of the US, who is his legal guardian and only source of care. His father is a resident of Botswana. Botswana regulations do not make provisions for a child above the age of 21 to reside in the country as a dependent. Even in the US, regulations do not consider children over the age of 21 to be dependents of their parents. Our office submitted the extension request to Service requesting discretionary relief as permitted in appropriated cases where family members are not eligible for derivative status. The extension request was approved without an RFE.
USDOL had denied a series of cases for many employers represented by various law firms. The ground of denial was that when "engineering" was one of the acceptable majors for an IT job, that created too much ambiguity for a case to be approved. DOL stated that there are fields of engineering, such as Agricultural Engineering, which are clearly inapplicable to IT positions.
This ruling had become a nation wide issue.
We filed an MTR pointing out the defects, legal and factual, in the ruling. We also indicated our willingness to litigate this highly unfair ruling in federal courts. DOL has, most appropriately, reversed their decision.
We represented a Computer Software Engineer and his spouse. USCIS denied the applicant’s Form I-485 because his former employer withdrew his previously approved I-140 petition when the applicant moved to a different employer. The employer and their lawyer refused to provide any information regarding the filing. So we were constrained to obtain the relevant information directly from the government. Once we received our client’s job description with his former employer, we were able to assess the applicant’s AC-21 porting eligibility. Based on this information, we filed a motion to reopen and reconsider the I-485, explaining that the applicant’s I-485 should not have been denied, considering his eligibility for AC21 portability. USCIS agreed, vacated the denials, and reopened the case.
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.