We were recently retained at the I-140 Appeal stage for an I-140 denied on grounds of fraud/willful misrepresentation. USCIS denied the I-140 citing inconsistencies between the ETA 9089 job requirements, the advertisements, and a subsequent letter sent by petitioner with an RFE pertaining to the job requirements. Due to what USCIS termed as "material inconsistencies," the I-140 was denied on the grounds that the labor certification submitted was gained through fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. Further, USCIS claimed the Petitioner/Beneficiary had no right to an appeal. We felt that the allegations were very serious and could lead to reprecussions for the company. A detailed discussion of the the incorrect legal and factual assumptions made by USCIS led to a reversal of the decision and reinstement of the labor certification and approval of the I-140. This was a good way to start the new year for our clients and us. :-)
Immigration.com Sample Cases
We were recently retained by an employer whose employee fell out of status due to an omissions by the former counsel. Prior to the employee’s H1B expiration date, the employer tried to file an H1B extension. The employer’s former Counsel utilized an obsolete and inappropriate wage source when filing the LCA. This wage amount was also not representative of what the employee was earning. As a result, the employer had to withdraw the LCA. This circumstance resulted in an untimely filing of the employer’s H1B application and the employee’s status expiring due to no fault of his own. Nonetheless, we were able to obtain H1B approval for the employee in six business days. The approval was given nunc pro tunc.
We were recently retained by an employer who had received very poor legal advice and representation from two different lawyers because of which their employee and her children fell out of H-1 status AND were unlawfully present in USA since 2004. It appeared almost impossible that we will be able to get her back into status after a gap of over FIVE years, but it did work out. Today, we have received H-1 approval as well as the coveted I-94 for all family members. Comments from the client are here: http://www.immigration.com/guestbook/h-1-visa/guestbook-entry-bruce-a-tr...
We were retained by a corporate client to process several E-3 petitions for nationals of Australia. All of the visas were issued at the Australian consulates without any problem. One applicant has already entered the U.S is currently working on E-3 status. We have also submitted a petition for an E-3 amendment with USCIS, which was also approved without any issues.
We were asked to also provide an opinion on the E-3 possibility for a Stage actor and teacher of dramatics. That case appeared to be a bit difficult because it was not clear that the job required a degree. Nevertheless, after that matter was clarified, that E-3 visa was also approved.
We have recently won a case following a Request for Evidence for a professor - Ph.D. in Mass Media and Communication. USCIS requested additional “documentary evidence” to support our claim that the applicant qualified under the EB1 Outstanding Researcher and Professor category based on applicant’s publications, acting as a judge of her peers as well as her original contributions. Based on the international reputation the applicant gained as a result of her involvement in the field of mass media, we were able to provide documentation, which included printouts from various news sources as well as extensive web coverage of her work. We also provided additional letters from editors that unequivocally identified the applicant as one of the eminent scholars in her field. Additionally, we provided evidence of the significance of the publications where the applicant’s work had been featured, that included the impact factor, circulation, ranking and historical data. The case was approved within four days of receipt of the response to the Request for Evidence.
We have recently won a case for an applicant who worked as a clinical dental professor and a researcher. The case was won following a Request for Evidence. We showed that the applicant qualified based on his international awards and honors and his highly regarded professional memberships. We provided substantial documentation to show the stringent criteria to obtain such honors.
We won a case for an applicant who worked not only as a clinical dental professor but also as a researcher. The case was won following a Request for Evidence. We showed that the applicant qualified based on his international awards and honors and his highly regarded professional memberships. We provided substantial documentation to show the stringent criteria to obtain such honors. Based on the overwhelming amount of documentary evidence to support the claim that the applicant qualified under professional memberships as well as noteworthy honors and awards, the application was approved shortly after submission of the response to the Request for Evidence.
We won an EB-1 Outstanding Researcher case for an applicant with a Ph.D. in Experimental Chemical Physics filing under Premium Processing. The case was decided within two days of submission. The applicant had over eleven years of research experience and an abundance of publications as a result of his extensive list of original findings. As a result of the multitude of publications in prestigious, international scientific journals, the applicant’s work was also extensively cited. We provided copies of the articles along with the data regarding the significance of the journals, which included printouts from Google Scholar and the ISI master journal list. We provided documentary evidence on each of the journals to show the reputation in the field. We also provided copies of the cited work, highlighting the citations as well as the reference section. As a result of the extensive publication list, we were also able to provide documentary evidence to reflect the significance of his “original” scientific contributions to the field.
We have won a case for a Ph.D. in Immunology for EB1, Outstanding Researcher following an elaborate Request for Evidence. The applicant had extensive research experience in the following areas: Pathology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Immunology. USCIS requested additional documentary evidence to support the initial evidence that the applicant qualified based on his acting as judge of others’ work, numerous publications with accompanying citations as well as substantial evidence of “original” scientific contributions. We offered additional supporting documents that included letters from prominent military officials noting requests for applicant to review proposals, elaborate details on the significance and impact of the journals where the applicant’s research work had been published as well as documentary evidence to support the international reputation the applicant had gained as reflected by the multitude of citations in prominent scientific journals in his field. We provided evidence to confirm that the applicant’s ongoing noteworthy research was based on his “original” scientific contributions and that his work had a significant impact on the overall health and well-being of not only the U.S. military personnel but also the citizens of the country.
Last week we received an approval for a difficult change of status RFE. We were retained to respond to an RFE for a client who had no ties to his home country (India). Six years of his H-1 were over and he was trying to get into F-1 status. He had been working and studying in Europe before coming to USA on H-1. We presented the facts of our client's background with complete honesty and sincerity. No games (which is the way all our cases are presented). I am glad to report that as has always been my belief, truthful presentation works.
We have been retained by several consulting companies to try to respond to their RFE's all of which require a letter from the end-client. Many times, despite best efforts, such letters are not available. So, as a test case, we filed an Request For Evidence is a a request from a government agency to provide further information on an issue before the government.
We have been retained by several consulting companies to try to respond to their RFE's all of which require a letter from the end-client. Many times, despite best efforts, such letters are not available. So, as a test case, we filed an RFE response without an end-client letter. As usual, USCIS wished for a confirmation of job duties, employer-employee relationship and duration of project. We made several legal arguments including pointing out repeated misapplication of the law by USCIS.
So far, we have received two approvals of H-1 without letters from end-clients.
See also my article on this subject.