Sample Cases from our office

We successfully responded to an H-1B request for evidence (RFE), questioning the beneficiary’s maintenance of status. The beneficiary’s previous employer (Employer A) had submitted an H-1B extension. While the petition was pending the beneficiary’s nonimmigrant status expired. An RFE was subsequently received by Employer A, and following the filing of a comprehensive RFE response, the petition was denied. Upon receipt of the denial the beneficiary immediately stopped working for Employer A and shortly thereafter applied for and accepted a job with Employer B, who then filed a petition requesting a change of employer and an H-1B extension. In the interim between the denial of the petition filed by Employer A and the filing of the petition by Employer B, the beneficiary was unable to leave the U.S. due to the COVID -19 pandemic and applicable international travel restrictions. We submitted a comprehensive RFE response clearly establishing that a gap in maintenance of status occurred because of extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the beneficiary and argued that the matter warranted discretionary approval. The petition filed by Employer B was then approved.

Status: We submitted a comprehensive RFE response clearly establishing that a gap in maintenance of status occurred because of extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the beneficiary and argued that the matter warranted discretionary approval. The petition filed by Employer B was then approved.

We assisted a client company in filing an EB-2-based PERM. The submitted ETA Form 9089 was selected for an audit by DOL. They requested evidence/explanation as to why only the specified combination of a higher degree and significant years of experience were required, beyond the normal requirements defined by O*Net, a source of occupational data often cited by the government. Our response included a significant amount of documentation and an extensive and detailed support letter presenting the case and context as to why the specifics of this particular employer’s product and the beneficiary’s role required a relatively high and indispensable level of both education and experience. The ETA 9089 was then certified.

Status: Our response included a significant amount of documentation and an extensive and detailed support letter presenting the case and context as to why the specifics of this particular employer’s product and the beneficiary’s role required a relatively high and indispensable level of both education and experience. The ETA 9089 was then certified. 

We filed an H-1B extension petition for a software consulting and professional services firm on behalf of a software architect requesting status and work authorization for a duration of three years. The extension was, however, approved for a duration much shorter than requested and the approval notice was both dated and received after the shorter validity period had already expired, thereby destroying the legal status of the employee and causing him to accrue unlawful presence. We immediately proceeded to file another H-1B extension petition, which was approved, but the extension of status within the U.S. was denied because the employee was “out of status.” These circumstances would have otherwise caused the employee to accrue unlawful presence, subjecting him to a bar from the U.S., and with no choice but to leave the U.S. with his family,  and apply for visa stamping abroad during the beginning stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, when international travel was highly inadvisable. With U.S. consulates abroad being closed during this time, the employee’s ability to work would also be interrupted for an indeterminate amount of time. We filed a  lawsuit against the government to have the employee’s extension of stay approved within ten days in order to prevent the employee from accruing unlawful presence. However, due to the urgency of the matter, and shortly thereafter, we filed a preliminary injunction motion to compel the court to hastily render a decision and preserve the employee’s status in the U.S. After filing the motion, and discussing the case with the government attorney, the government settled the case. The employee immediately received an extension of his status in the U.S. for the entire requested duration, allowing him to stay in the U.S. and continue working.

Status: The employee immediately received an extension of his status in the U.S. for the entire requested duration, allowing him to stay in the U.S. and continue working.

We filed an H-1B petition for a company that provides IT related services, on behalf of the beneficiary, a  software developer. An RFE was subsequently issued, responded to and then denied as failing to prove that petitioner established that sufficient speciality occupation work was available and that the position qualified as a specialty occupation. We filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Office, the appeal was sustained and the petition was remanded back for issuance of an approval notice. During the following months multiple attempts were made by counsel and petitioner to determine and expedite the processing of the approval notice. After approximately six months of delay in issuance of the notice, we filed a complaint with a United States District Court. We were able to successfully argue that this was an unreasonable delay. The case was settled and approximately ten days after filing the case the approval notice was issued.

Status: We were able to successfully argue that this was an unreasonable delay. The case was settled and approximately ten days after filing the case the approval notice was issued.

We responded to a Form I-485 Request for Evidence to prove that approximately a decade ago the permanent residency applicant had, in fact, attended two U.S. universities as he had claimed in previously approved petitions. Both universities had been certified by ICE under its Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) during the applicant’s attendance. Subsequent to his having transferred from one university to the other, from which the applicant then obtained a graduate degree, and after he no longer had any association with either universities, ICE withdrew its SEVP certification from both universities. The documents requested by USCIS dated back to over a decade. Fortunately the applicant had retained many documents that indicated he had in fact attended both universities and relied upon the universities and their Designated School Officials who administer the SEVP and provide information and guidance to the students. We also pointed out to the government that even if USCIS found that the applicant had violated his visa status he remained eligible for an exemption under the regulations  and that  discretionary approval was warranted in this case. While we were unable to provide all documents required given the time that had lapsed, a few weeks after filing, the applicant’s Green Card was approved.

Status: While we were unable to provide all documents required given the time that had lapsed, a few weeks after filing, the applicant’s Green Card was approved.