Sample Cases from our office

We filed an H-1B extension petition for a small software company that offers customer software and technology solutions to the local clientele. USCIS approved the classification portion of the petition, but denied the portion of the petition requesting an extension of stay. USCIS stated that beneficiary had failed to maintain his nonimmigrant status because his H-1B status had expired prior to the filing of the H-1B extension petition and he was only  in an authorized period of stay because of a pending extension request from the previous employer. We filed a lawsuit with a United States District Court. We argued that in denying the period of authorized stay, while the previously filed H-1B was pending, USCIS misinterpreted their own regulation. The case was settled in a few weeks and the petition was approved with extension of stay and for the entire requested duration without a gap in the employee’s status.

Status: The case was settled in a few weeks and the petition was approved with extension of stay and for the entire requested duration without a gap in the employee’s status.

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 attended both universities in good faith and relied upon the universities and their Designated School Officials who administer 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.

In this case, the petitioning green card holder filed forms I-130 and I-485 for her second husband, whom she had been married to for less than five years since obtaining her lawful permanent resident status based on her first marriage, which was to a U.S. citizen. That marriage ended in a divorce. In such instances there is a rebuttable presumption that the prior marriage was fraudulent.  There is an exception if five years have passed from the petitioner's adjustment or if the petitioner can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the first marriage was entered into as a bona fide marriage. A notice of intent to deny (NOID) was issued following the couple’s interview with a Service Officer.  Since five years had not passed, we assisted Petitioner in responding to the NOID and proving by clear and convincing evidence that her prior marriage was not fraudulent. The detailed response included many documents regarding the bona fide nature of the first marriage, such as photographs, extensive wedding and pre and post wedding details along with many affidavits. We requested USCIS to withdraw its intention to deny and resume processing. Shortly after filing the NOID response, Beneficiary received his green card.

Status: We requested USCIS to withdraw its intention to deny and resume processing. Shortly after filing the NOID response, Beneficiary received his green card.

We assisted in the filing of an H-1B petition for a newly established company in the healthcare industry for a computer and information systems manager. We received a request for evidence (RFE), asking for details about the employer and questioning the employee’s qualifications. Oddly, the RFE specifically questioned the credentials of the professor, who had assessed the employee’s educational background and experiential qualifications. Although evidence, such as detailed experience letters, could not be obtained due to a lapse in time, we were able to procure updated letters from the university attesting to the professor-evalutor’s credentials, and a new evaluation. Our detailed response, describing the additional evidence and context led to the case being approved.

Status: Our detailed response, describing the additional evidence and context led to the case being approved.

We were approached by an employer in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry to respond to an RFE (Request for Evidence) for an Operations Research Analyst. The RFE indicated that the job duties were vague, and did not allow the USCIS to ascertain the minimum requirements for the position, or determine whether it constituted a specialty occupation. We responded with painstaking detail, elaborating the job duties and providing considerable context about the employer and the strict FDA (Food and Drug Administration) regulations that they are required to operate under.  We also included significant corroborating evidence, including detailed letters from industry experts, expounding on the positional requirements and complexity of the job. The petition was approved.

Status: We also included significant corroborating evidence, including detailed letters from industry experts, expounding on the positional requirements and complexity of the job. The petition was approved.