The head-quarters for the sponsoring employer were located outside the United States. The applicant worked in the United States at a branch office, which had fewer than 5 employees. Because of the head-quarters location and the US branch office size, the DOL questioned the existence of the company in the United States. We responded with evidence of the sponsoring employer’s business in the United States and the PERM Petition was certified.
Immigration.com Sample Cases
The sponsoring employer was a small company (less than 20 employees) that was sponsoring the brother of the president. The Labor Certification was audited due to the familial relationship, which is a significant issue in the PERM process. We successfully responded by proving that the relationship between the president and the applicant did not influence or affect the PERM Processing. The I-140 petition and I-485 petitions were approved, and the applicant received his permanent residency.
In a case decided yesterday, we had filed an appeal to BALCA against a PERM denial by the Certifying Officer (“CO”). The ground for denial was that the Job Order did not provide the exact salary offered to the foreign worker. We showed in our appeal that the fault lay with the Job Order form of the State Workforce Agency. The form did not permit us to enter the higher end of the wage range for our job, where we had offered a wage range instead of an exact figure. The CO appears to have agreed with us and has withdrawn denial and certified our case.
We filed an EB-1, Outstanding Researcher petition premium processing for the beneficiary who qualified based on her extraordinary contributions in applied sciences. Her substantial and highly innovative contributions paved the way for commercial manufacturing of flexible displays by major, well-known display manufacturing companies. The beneficiary’s commercialized research was well documented. She has over eight years of research experience in the nanotechnology field producing a multitude of patents. We also provided documentary evidence of the beneficiary’s research publications in prestigious scientific journals as well as the lengthy citation record of these articles. What was unusual about this case was that the beneficiary did not have a PhD, which is the norm for many, if not most EB-1 cases.
We had a Labor certification case filed for an IT professional. The requirements were Bachelor's degree and 5 years of experience. We filed I-140 under EB-2 category. After approximately 8 months, USCIS sent us an RFE saying Bachelor's plus five years would not qualify under EB2 unless the experience required is progressive in nature. We knew that USCIS was wrong under the circumstances of the case, but an argument with the government was unnecessary because the EB-3 priority dates were then current. In the RFE, the employer was also given an option of changing the classification to EB3. After discussion it was decided that employer will accept EB-3 classification since the priority dates for EB-3 category were current. Then the EB3 and EB2 priority dates slipped back.
Recently when the EB-2 PD became current for our client, we applied again for an EB-2 I-140 using the same labor certification.
The I-140 approval was received along with the I-485 approval notice.
We have received two interesting B-2 extensions. It has been my view that under certain circumstances B-2 can and should be permitted by USCIS to be used even where the applicant has an immigrant intent or is otherwise staying longer than usual in USA. Apparently, USCIS agrees.
In the first case, we were preparing an EB-5 (One Million Dollar investment) for an applicant who was here on a B-2 visa. So, we disclosed fully to the government that we have immigrant intent, but should not be required to leave because we are in the process of investing. A forced visit back to home country serves no useful purpose. USCIS approved the case.
In the second case, we have just received a third B-2 extension for the parent of a green card holder. The applicant suffers from chronic ailments and needs to be monitored. Both his sons live in USA (H-1 and green card). Once again, USCIS approved the case.
EB1 – Outstanding Researcher – Seed Technology/Plant Science
This week, we filed an I-140 petition premium processing and received an approval within 24 hours. The applicant had over thirteen years’ research experience, some of which was while working for a world-renowned company known for its innovative work in seed technology. We were able to provide substantial documentary evidence of the applicant’s original contributions that began as early has his Ph.D. years. The applicant had published some very significant articles that changed the course of research for many of his peers. Thus, his publications were cited heavily in top scientific journals with high impact factors. We were also able to supply copies of articles featuring the applicant and his work. The applicant had also been invited to participate on a national advisory board for a prominent society due to his reputation in the scientific community. Reference letters from leading experts clearly defined this applicant as one of the very top scientists in this unique specialty. The 24-hour turn around was a very pleasant surprise indeed.
We have recently won a case for a physician working in several rural clinics as well as his private practice within a medically underserved area. We were retained following a denial of the I-140 petition for NIW. We filed an appeal as well as an amended (new) I-140 application to show that the physician had met the 5-year service requirements for an NIW. The applicant had moved from one medically underserved area to another while the original I-140 was pending. The issue was whether an “amendment” could have been filed in this case to notify USCIS of the move without an approved I-140. USCIS issued a request for evidence, but acknowledged the applicant’s prior medical service and credited him the time towards his 5-year requirement. Upon receipt of the request for evidence we responded with additional documentation to show the relationship between the physician (medical service provider) and the rural clinics (contractor). We supplied attestation letters from each of the contractors as well as an affidavit from the applicant indicating a commitment to complete his 5-years of medical service in the underserved area. In order to show “full-time” employment, we provided documentation that described the combined service at each rural clinic as well as time spent with patients at his private practice, which more than met the 40-hour requirement. We also offered a letter from the previous employer to document prior medical service.
We were retained to assist a single US Citizen woman to adopt a child from India. Due to India’s rigid regulations pertaining to who is eligible to become an adoptive parent of an Indian orphan, our client was initially worried this dream would never come to fruition. She had received very discouraging advice from several sources. Nevertheless, within about one year’s time after we started working, the process is completed. Both immigration related petitions (I-800/I-800a) were approved within a few weeks after submission. There were several intervening issues throughout the process, however, working with our client’s State Department approved Adoption Agency, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State we were able to resolve all such matters. With all intercountry formalities completed as required by the Hague Convention, our client and her daughter are now happily together in the United States.
We have just received another H-1 approval for an end-client placement. There were two intervening vendors and the end-client declined to provide a letter stating that there is no requirement in law for them to provide any such letter. We had to get together convincing secondary evidence. I was highly doubtful we will get the approval, but we did. So, despite the January 8 memo from USCIS, there is life yet for consulting industry.