As of May 2009, we have been involved with over 100 investigations from USDOL, ICE, USDOJ, DOS and FBI. One theme that emerges quite clearly is this. A governmental investigation is NOT the same thing as a normal litigation. The investigators are all things rolled into one: police, prosecutor and judge. I have seen so many investigations being mishandled because counsel failed to recognize this truth. By the time we get called in, it gets difficult to mop up the mess. I like to believe that all investigations that we have handled from the beginning have brought good results. While the government has a lot of power, they are not omnipotent. Some items have to be firmly and politely declined. And of course, where necessary, we are willing to go to court over our stand. Folks, investigations have become a way of life. We just have to be prepared for them. When we conduct preventative audits for clients, we point out the things in their files that need to be addressed and improved. In my view, it is extremely important that audits of existing files and procedures be conducted.
Immigration.com Sample Cases
We have recently been able to successfully reopen a labor certification and get the case approved after it had been closed because of what we feel were errors by two previous lawyers retained by employer. Our client had her case denied and closed over ONE YEAR ago. We were retained for a consultation and in-depth review. It appeared obvious that the employer and the employee were not at fault. It took some effort but the facts were compelling enough that USDOL reopened the case in the interest of justice. The case was approved last week. We truly appreciate the fairness shown by USDOL.
We filed an applicant's N-400 Petition for Citizenship where the applicant was out of the US for 400+ days. USCIS issued a RFE requesting information about the applicant's stay outside the United States without the requisite N-470. We were able to provide several arguments justifying the out of country stay, demonstrating that the applicant had no intention of abandoning US Permanent Residency.
We filed for Citizenship for a couple living and working overseas on an N-470 for a US company. The couple had met all the requirements for Citizenship, but the US employer needed them to remain overseas until the project was completed. During the processing of the application, they returned to the United States for the fingerprinting and interviews.
We filed for Citizenship for a couple living and working overseas on an N-470 for a US company. The couple had met all the requirements for Citizenship, but the US employer needed them to remain overseas until the project was completed. During the processing of the application, they returned to the United States for the fingerprinting and interviews. At the interview, they both passed the history and language tests, but were told that they could not be approved for Citizenship until after the foreign assignment was over and they had returned to reside permanently in the United States. According to the interviewer, N-470 preserves Permanent Residency but does not allow for the N-400 to be filed from overseas. Our office interpreted the N-470 regulations differently.
There were 4 applicants, all members of a family. USCIS denied them citizenship stating that they were not able to show that they maintained continuous residency requirements for citizenship. Two of the applicants were students. They had gone abroad to study. One of the students had a shoplifting charge against him in the USA and had this as additional ground for the denial.
We received I-485 RFE's for multiple pending clients where the sponsoring employer is located in State A and the applicant is living in State B. In such cases, USCIS requests justification for the discrepancy in locations. Citing to various section of pertinent legal code in our RFE responses, many I-485 applications have been approved within 60 days of RFE response submission.
Indian-born client had I-140 approved under Category EB2 with Priority Date of 2003 and a pending I-485 case affected by retrogression. The client married a foreign spouse while I-485 was pending. The new spouse was born in Canada, a country not affected by retrogression in the client's category. We filed the I-485 for the new spouse and a request for cross-chargeability for the main applicant. The client's I-485 was approved 3 months after request for I-485 cross-chargeability and the spouse was approved 5 months after the I-485 filing.
Indian-born client had I-140 Approved and I-485 filed through first Labor Certification case under EB3 with a 2003 Priority Date. He also filed an I-140 under EB2 with a Priority Date of 2006. Rajiv advised to file I-485 through 2nd Labor Certification, requesting Service to permit inheritance of the 2003 Priority Date to have a current I-485 case. Based upon the 2nd I-485 being filed and the EB2 category request, the client obtained his Permanent Residency 1.5 months after filing the 2nd I-485.
In a case dating back to 2001, Petitioner eventually moved his office to a location greater than 50 miles from the address of the original office listed on the Form ETA-750. In 2008, USCIS issued an RFE requesting Petitioner to submit evidence showing that the new location is still within the same metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) as the original location. While Government Data and distance may suggest the two locations are not within the same SMSA, we created a new and original argument enabling the Petitioner to obtain I-140 approval.
In recent months Service has issued I-140 RFEs requesting Petitioner to demonstrate ability to pay all immigrant and non-immigrant petitions in specified windows of time. For one client, this entailed analysis of approximately 150 petitions including H-1s (new, transfers, and extensions), L-1s, and I-140s. With detailed explanations of each petition, our firm was able to obtain I-140 approval within one week.