Sample Cases from our office

We filed an application seeking a waiver of the foreign residence requirement for our client based on exceptional hardship upon the client’s U.S. citizen child.  We argued that the minor child would suffer extreme hardship if he were forced to leave the U.S. with his mother to fulfill the two-year home residency requirement because of a serious medical condition, for which treatment was not readily available in the applicant’s home country.  We provided ample supporting documentation in this regard.

USCIS granted the waiver.

Our client, a former Tri-Valley University of California (TVU) student who was left out of status due to unexpected closure of TVU, applied for reinstatement to student status.  He retained us to respond to the Request for Evidence (RFE) he received on his reinstatement application.  There were several serious issues raised by USCIS in the RFE.  One of them was that the USCIS alleged that the online classes our client took at TVUdisqualified him from full-time F-1 student status.  We prepared a comprehensive response and documented our client’s entire case history.  We argued that our client complied with F-1 regulations before and after his association with TVU, followed all the instructions of his Designated School Officials (DSO’s), and should not be faulted for relying and acting on the advice of TVU DSO’s.

USCIS accepted our arguments and approved the reinstatement.

We filed an EB-2 I-140 Petition for a petitioner corporation and a beneficiary Senior Systems Analyst. The USCIS sent us a Request for Evidence (RFE), requesting information proving that the petitioner would be in an employer/employee relationship with the beneficiary and that the petitioner had the ability to pay the proffered wages for all of the beneficiaries for whom it had petitioned.

We filed a lengthy response with nearly forty exhibits. The petition was approved less than three weeks later.

We filed a Form ETA 9089 Foreign Labor Certification (PERM) for a petitioner corporation and a beneficiary Software Architect. The Department of Labor sent us an Audit Notification, which functions as a Request for Evidence in these cases, requesting information on the necessity of the high level of education and experience the petitioner required for the position and details about the process the petitioner used to advertise for the position.

The information we provided seemed to be satisfactory on those points, but the DOL denied the petition, alleging that the position included a telecommuting benefit that was not included in the advertising. After we filed a Motion to Reconsider in which we argued that, in fact, the position did not include a telecommuting benefit and explained the illogical conclusion reached by DOL, they accepted our argument of government error and certified the petition. Later, USCIS approved the I-140 petition as well.

We won a case following a Request for Evidence for a scientist. We were able to establish that he is an internationally renowned scientist who is acclaimed and respected in the international research community for his expertise in the area of nanotechnology, magnetic nanoparticles and nanocomposites, nanomagnetism, thermoelectric nanoparticles and nanocomposite materials. His unique specialty set him apart from others in the field. The applicant provided documentary evidence to show that he qualified for four criteria of the category; publications, original contributions, professional membership in a society that required extraordinary achievements and reviewer of work of his peers. He was invited to review for several high-impact scientific journals. He also had an extensive publication list as well as presentations world-wide for his innovative and pioneering work. One of his articles was selected and featured as an “article of impact” in a virtual scientific journal. Only a very small percentage of articles are chosen for this particular publication. As a result of his noteworthy original contributions, he had an impressive number of citations of his work. We also showed in our response to the RFE that this applicant’s extensive contributions to the field were beyond the normal scope of a researcher with his years of educational and work experience.