Success Stories From 2011

We were retained by a client who was in USA on B-2 status and wished to apply for green card through EB-5 investor/entrepreneur category. We obtained a B-2 extension and simultaneously filed the EB-5 petition. Client was in the process of investing $1 Million in an existing business. $500,000.00 of the investment was in the form of cash (some portion of which was gift money) and for the remaining $500,000.00, a promissory note was executed and secured by foreign personal assets of client.

Since the business in which the client proposed to invest was already experiencing financial difficulties, we were successfully able to prove that it qualified as a troubled business, i.e., a business that had been in existence for at least two years, and had during the twelve or twenty-four month period prior to the priority date incurred a net loss of at least twenty per cent of the business's net worth prior to such loss.

USCIS initially issued an RFE, mainly raising issues about source of funds. We provided comprehensive tabular explanation along with the appropriate documents to trace the source of funds. One of the challenges was proving source of funds for the money coming from a Joint Family Account. We were able to successfully show that money pooled into “Hindu Undivided Family Fund” properly known as HUF Account, becomes a joint family property, and passes through testamentary succession, therefore as such, our client is the lawful owner of those funds, which her husband left in HUF Account after his death. We provided further evidence that client’s husband had income from lawful business activity, therefore it qualified as ‘lawful investment’ under EB-5 regulations.

USCIS accepted all our arguments and approved EB-5 petition.

We filed a petition premium processing for the beneficiary who qualified based on her extraordinary engineering contributions. Her substantial and highly scientific contributions paved the way for commercial manufacturing of flexible displays by major, well-known display manufacturing companies. The beneficiary’s commercialized research was featured on Amazon.com. She had over eight years of research experience in the nanotechnology field resulting in multiple 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. The beneficiary was employed with a private employer therefore we submitted documentation of the petitioner’s R&D staff to show at least 3 full time researchers. We also provided documentary evidence to show the accomplishments of the employer as well as their ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage, which included a letter from the CFO, the beneficiary’s tax return, W-2, and recent pay stubs.  The petition was aproved without an RFE.

We filed a petition premium processing for the beneficiary who qualified based on his original contributions, publication record, featured research work in the media and service as a judge of the works of his research peers. USCIS seems to have accepted the veracity of our claim for outstanding ability without a question.  We were issued a request for evidence asking only for proof of the petitioner’s ability to pay. We supplied the most recent financial report of the petitioner, a letter from the CFO as well as copies of the beneficiaries W2 and most recent pay stubs. The case was approved within a week.

A recruiting firm for accountants retained our services to file an H-1B petition for a recruiter. Typically, it is difficult to justify that the position of a recruiter qualifies as an H-1B level occupation. Our petition to USCIS argued, however, that even though recruiters do not generally qualify as a specialty level occupation, the present case is different because the beneficiary will be hired as an International Accounting/Finance Recruiter. Accordingly, since the job duties of such a position are sufficiently complex to require knowledge of accounting, taxation, audit etc., the position requires the incumbent to possess at least a bachelor’s degree in the relevant field.   Consequently, USCIS issued an RFE raising the issue of specialty occupation. We responded by providing the beneficiary’s expanded job description and detailed project description, the employer’s past hiring practices and other supporting evidence.  This case was approved.

 
We were retained to represent a client whose L-1A was denied because USCIS was not convinced that the job qualified as a “Managerial Level” position for the client’s small restaurant business that had 8-10 employees. The Beneficiary was out of status and has already started accruing unlawful presence. We reviewed the paperwork submitted by the previous attorney and suggested that the client file a Motion to Reopen on the basis of certain defects. We also filed a new L-1A extension petition. We argued very that the size of the business is not the exclusive factor in determining managerial capacity and Beneficiary can qualify for L-1A as a “Functional Manager” even if he is not supervising any employee. Initially we received an RFE, which we responded to empathically, citing several decided cases and regulations and reasoning that the size of business and number of employees supervised are not exclusive factors in determining “managerial capacity.” USCIS accepted our arguments and approved the L-1A petition, but without an I-94.
L-1A without an I-94 would not have put Beneficiary in lawful status. The major challenge we were facing was that this beneficiary could be potentially subject to a bar from reentering USA. We advised the client not to travel abroad and to fight in US for grant of an I-94. We recommended filing another L-1A petition specifically requesting USCIS to approve L-1A with an I-94.  We filed the L-1A amended petition with nunc pro tunc request for amendment of stay. We cited business necessity and implications if Beneficiary is not allowed to reenter. This time USCIS accepted our nunc pro tunc request and issued L-1A with a backdated I-94, excusing the entire unlawful presence and out of status period.