slide
Success Stories
If you need help in any aspect of immigration law, feel free to contact our office. We invite you to view our success stories.
slide
From Our Clients
Please read our compiled reviews from the internet, from Google to AVVO, on what our clients have said about our firm.
slide
Marriage
One of the fastest and most common immigration cases are those based on marriage to a US Citizen.
slide
Family and Relative Immigration
From immigration of children, parents, siblings, to cases involving 245(i), CSPA, and the death of a petitioner, we are here to help.
slide
H-1B
H-1B petitions for employment in specialty occupations, from computer analysts, engineers, nurse managers, accountants, architects, doctors, feel free to contact us.
slide
Asylum
Past persecution or fear of future persecution on account of politics, race, religion, social group, or nationality. Let us guide you in the asylum application process.
Post image for I-130 Approval and Termination of Removal Proceedings for Cameroonian Client in Atlanta Georgia

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Cameroonian
LOCATION: Atlanta, GA (USCIS) / Memphis, TN (EOIR)

Our Cameroonian client came to the United States in December 1999 on an F-1 student visa. In July 2001, he filed an asylum application to the USCIS, was interviewed by the USCIS, and later his case was referred to the Immigration Court.  Thereafter, a Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceedings. After he got the Notice to Appear, he appeared at his initial master calendar hearing at the Memphis Immigration Court with his previous attorney.

His removal proceedings were continued, but he could not appear at his individual hearing in April 2003 due to hospitalization.  Thus, the Court found him removable and ordered him removed in absentia.  

Later, in April 2011, he filed a Motion to Reopen with assistance from his previous immigration counsel.  However, this Motion to Reopen was denied by the Court in July 2011.  Thereafter, he contacted our office to determine whether he can file a Motion to Reopen again.  After the consultation, we explained him that the only way the Court can reopen his case is based on changed country conditions in Cameroon.  It is because our client’s second Motion to Reopen can be considered untimely filed and numerically barred.  After the explanation, our client decided to retain our office and retained us on November 22, 2011 for Motion to Reopen based on changed country conditions.

Under immigration law, if an applicant seeks to make an asylum claim and a final order of removal has been entered and the ninety-day filing deadline for motions to reopen has passed, the BIA and the majority of Circuit Courts have found that the applicant may only file the asylum application through a motion to reopen and only under the “changed country conditions” provision of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i).  Thus, our office prepared the Motion to Reopen based on the changed country conditions in Cameroon.

On March 6, 2012, our office filed the Motion to Reopen with the Memphis Immigration Court. With 15-pages brief, we included a detailed affidavit regarding his involvement in political activist group in Cameroon, several affidavits from his fellow members who confirmed his involvement with the organization.  We claimed that the number of arrests and detentions of his political group members has recently escalated since his original removal hearing in 2003 resulting in changed country conditions.  We also attached a letter from a human rights officer in which he states that he knew our client’s political involvement in Cameroon. Moreover, other supporting documents such as newspaper articles and country report of Cameroon were submitted (24 exhibits).  On March 29, 2012, the DHS filed a Response in Opposition to our Motion.  Nevertheless, on May 2, 2012, the Memphis Immigration Court granted our motion and reopened our client’s case.  

Once his case is reopened, he retained our office again. Our attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu appeared at his master calendar hearing via telephonic appearance and his individual hearing was scheduled on September 29, 2014 at the Memphis Immigration Court.

Our client was persecuted and harmed in Cameroon based on his political opinion and movement.  Our client was scared to go back home to Cameroon, fearing that he will be persecuted based on his political opinion. Moreover, our client’s late father and his uncle were mistreated and harmed in Cameroon due to their political opinion as well.

We helped him file his asylum application and represented him in immigration court hearings. We also asked him to provide supporting documents corroborating his claim, some of which were a letter from his family, colleagues and friends in Cameroon. Our firm also did some research on articles related to his claim, and the type of persecution he will experience in Cameroon if sent back.

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on September 29, 2014 at the Memphis Immigration Court. Attorney Sung Hee Yu from our firm prepared him extensively. He also represented our client at his Individual Hearing at the Memphis Immigration Court.

Prior to the hearing, Immigration Judge held a pre-trial conference with Attorney Yu and the DHS counsel. During the pre-trial conference, and all of the possible issues were examined. At the conclusion of the conference, withholding of removal was granted. After the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted Withholding of Removal for our client based on his persecution in Cameroon.

In December 2014, our client married his current U.S. citizen wife. He retained our office again for the I-130 petition. Once we were retained, our office prepared and filed the I-130 petition for our client and filed it to USCIS on August 14, 2015.

Our client’s I-130 interview was scheduled on October 3, 2016 at Atlanta USCIS Field Office.  Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and his wife for the interview via conference calls. Attorney Yu also accompanied them for their interview. The interview went well, and the I-130 petition was eventually approved on October 11, 2016.

Once the I-130 was approved, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to terminate proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents. The DHS counsel in Memphis, TN agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on February 24, 2017.  Now, he can file his I-485 adjustment of status application to USCIS to obtain his green card.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for I-130 Approval and Termination of Removal Proceedings for Cameroonian Client in Columbus Ohio

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Cameroonian
LOCATION: Columbus, Ohio

Our client is from Cameroon who came to the U.S. on a F-1 Student Visa in April 2008 to study. Our client currently resides in the greater Columbus area with his current U.S. Citizen wife. They were married in July 2013, and he retained our office on July 11, 2016 for the I-130 petition. Our client’s U.S. citizen wife filed the I-130 petition for our client before, but it was denied. Moreover, our client was placed in removal proceedings in 2010 at the Baltimore Immigration Court and the Court granted withholding of removal relief for our client. Once we were retained, our office prepared and filed the I-130 petition for our client and filed it to the USCIS on July 22, 2016.

Our client’s I-130 interview was scheduled on October 18, 2016 at Columbus USCIS Filed Office.  Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and his wife for the interview at our office. Attorney Yu also accompanied them for their interview. The interview lasted two hours, but the I-130 petition was eventually approved on the same day of the interview.

Once the I-130 was approved, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to terminate proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents. The DHS counsel in Baltimore, MD agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on February 10, 2017.  Now, he can file his I-485 adjustment of status application to USCIS to obtain his green card.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for I-130 Approval and Termination of Removal Proceedings for Malian Client in Cleveland, Ohio

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Malian
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client is from Mali who came to the U.S. on a F-1 Student Visa in August 2010 to study. Our client currently resides in the greater Cleveland area with his current U.S. Citizen wife. They were married in January 2015, and retained our office on January 6, 2016 for representation of our client at the Cleveland Immigration Court. Our client’s wife filed an I-130 Petition for our client with their former immigration lawyer in February 2015.  While the I-130 petition was pending, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court on January 26, 2016 for his initial master calendar hearing.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented him at the hearing, did the pleading and sought for adjustment of status relief upon the approval of the I-130 petition.

Our client’s I-130 interview was scheduled on June 21, 2016 at Cleveland USCIS Filed Office.  Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our client and his wife for the interview at our office. Attorney Yu also accompanied them for their interview. The interview lasted two hours, but the I-130 petition was eventually approved on August 25, 2016.

Once the I-130 was approved, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to terminate proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents. The DHS counsel in Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on January 5, 2017.  Now, he can file his I-485 adjustment of status application to USCIS to obtain his green card.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Asylum Approval for Chinese Client (Political Opinion) at the New York Immigration Court

CASE: Asylum in Immigration Court

CLIENT: Chinese

LOCATION: New York Immigration Court

Our Chinese client came to the United States on a F-1 visa in July 2012.  He was persecuted and harmed in China based on his political opinion and political activism, so within one year of his entry, he filed an asylum application (Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and relief under the CAT) to the USCIS with our office’s legal assistance.  He was interviewed at the Asylum Office in Lyndhurst, NJ in February 2013, but his case was referred to an immigration judge. The Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceedings.  

After the case was referred to the Immigration Court, our client retained our office again.

Our client was scared to go back home to China, fearing that he will be persecuted based on his political opinion and his past political speech. While our client was in China, he made political speech in public and expressed his ideas regarding democracy in China. As a result, he was arrested and detained by the Chinese police and has experienced harm and mistreatments in numerous occasions.  

We helped him prepare his asylum application and represented him in immigration court hearings. We also asked him to provide supporting documents corroborating his claim, some of which were a letter from his father, colleagues and friends in China and medical documents of our client’s psychological health. Our firm also did some research on articles related to his claim, and the type of persecution he will experience in China if sent back.

Our client’s individual hearing was scheduled on December 19, 2016, at the New York Immigration Court. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu represented our client at the hearing. During the hearing, our client testified credibly as to his past persecution in China and likelihood of future persecution. After the hearing, the Immigration Judge granted asylum relief for our client. He is now an asylee who will get his work permit soon and will be eligible to apply for permanent residency in one year.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Immigrant Visa Approval After 601A Provisional Hardship Waiver Approval for Guatemalan Client in Cleveland Ohio

CASE:   Immigrant Visa / I-601A Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Guatemalan

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client came to the United States from Guatemala in January 2000 without inspection and admission. He married his U.S. citizen wife in 2006. They had two U.S. citizen children together.  His U.S. Citizen wife filed an I-130 petition for him on March 4, 2009. This I-130 petition was approved on June 5, 2009.

Our client cannot file for adjustment of status application due to his ground of inadmissibility. He needed a waiver of inadmissibility to become a green card holder. Moreover, our client was placed in removal proceedings, but with our office’s assistance, his removal proceeding was administratively closed in December 2013 to file the provisional waiver application.

Under current law, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are not eligible to adjust status in the United States must travel abroad and obtain an immigrant visa. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence while in the United States must obtain a waiver of inadmissibility to overcome the unlawful presence bars under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act before they can return to the United States.

In 2013, the USCIS announced of new policy called the provisional unlawful presence waiver. Beginning March 4, 2013, certain immigrant visa applicants who are spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives) can apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers before they leave the United States. The provisional unlawful presence waiver process allows individuals, who only need a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence, to apply for a waiver in the United States.

The new process is expected to shorten the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members are obtaining immigrant visas to become lawful permanent residents of the United States.

INA § 212(i) provides for a discretionary waiver of the entry without inspection inadmissibility ground. To qualify for the waiver, the alien must establish that his or her US Citizen spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission. INA § 212(i)(1). In addition to the equities presented, the USCIS may consider the nature of the inadmissibility ground.

There is a seminal BIA case that deals with this waiver.  In Matter of Cervantes, 22 I & N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), the BIA identified the factors to be considered in determining whether a qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission.  Those factors include: the presence of LPR or USC family ties both within and outside the United States; the conditions in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties to that country; the financial impact of departure from the United States; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to the unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.

Our client’s I-601A application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife and son suffer from a great degree of medical hardship. In the I-601A brief and supporting documents, our office included extensive medical reports of his wife and his son.  We argued that if he was removed from the United States, extreme hardship to his wife is clearly foreseeable and evident.  His wife has ongoing medical hardships and she would not be able to take care of her own needs and the bulk of their family chores, most importantly taking care of their children. Also, it would be extremely difficult for her to get the same level of therapy and satisfactory access to medical services in Guatemala in case she joins our client there.

In our brief, we also argued that our client and his wife have maintained strong family ties in the United States, that his wife will have difficulty in finding the same level of employment in Guatemala, that our client has good employment in the United States, and that his U.S. citizen child and his wife will face extreme financial and emotional difficulties if he is removed.

On March 11, 2015, we filed the I-601A waiver application which included the brief in support, his wife and son’s extensive medical examination records, and other documents that demonstrated hardship to his wife if he is removed from the United States.

However, on May 13, 2015, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) for our client’s case. USCIS explicitly requested our client to submit more evidence to prove extreme hardship to his U.S. citizen wife if he is forced to relocate in Guatemala. In response to this RFE, our office prepared a response brief along with more medical evidence of our client’s U.S. citizen wife. Our office filed the response to RFE on June 12, 2015.

Eventually, his I-601A waiver was approved on June 22, 2015.

Once his I-601A waiver was approved, he retained our office again for his immigrant visa processing. Our office prepared and filed his immigrant visa application on February 18, 2016. In April 2016, the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala informed our office that they scheduled an immigrant visa interview for our client. Our client went back to Guatemala to appear at his interview on May 3, 2016. On May 3, 2016, our client appeared at his immigrant visa interview at the Embassy, and the Consulate officer approved his immigrant visa.

Our client successfully came back to the United States with an approved immigrant visa and he will get his green card in a mail within two months.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Termination of Proceedings on Approved I-130 Approved for Pakistani Clients in Philadelphia Pennsylvania

CASE:  Termination of Proceedings after Joint Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Pakistanis
LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA

Our clients are Pakistani citizens who currently reside in Philadelphia, PA. They were on Withholding of Removal status. Their U.S. Citizen sons were US Citizens. Our client entered to the United States on a valid L-1 and L-2 visa in November 2000.  Later, they were granted withholding of removal in July 2006 by the Philadelphia Immigration Court.

In November 2013, our clients’ son became a naturalized U.S. citizen. However, for them to get a green card, their case should first be reopened in the Immigration Court for them to apply for adjustment of status either with the Court, or with the CIS should proceedings be terminated after reopening.

In May 2015, our clients contacted our office and sought legal assistance for their immigration matter. Our client retained us on May 14, 2015.  Upon retention, we first prepared and filed their U.S. citizen son’s I-130 petitions for them. We filed the I-130 petitions to the USCIS on May 20, 2015 and the USCIS approved the I-130s on October 5, 2015. Once the I-130s were approved, we filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen for our client to USICE-DHS office in Philadelphia.  Our cover brief explained how they got their withholding of removal status, approval of I-130, and their prima facie eligibility to apply for adjustment of status.

After the long review period, the DHS office in Philadelphia finally agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and an assigned counsel signed on the Motion on April 11, 2016.  Once we received the Joint Motion to Reopen, we filed a Motion to the Philadelphia Immigration Court to request reopening of our clients’ cases so that they can apply for adjustment of status. Eventually, on April 28, 2016, the Philadelphia Immigration Court terminated our clients’ removal proceedings. Now, with the termination order and approved I-130 by their U.S. citizen son, our client can file the adjustment of status applications to the USCIS.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate Proceedings Approved for Pakistani on Withholding of Removal in Philadelphia Pennsylvania

CASE:  Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate Proceedings
CLIENT: Pakistanis
LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA

Our clients are a Pakistani couple who currently reside in Philadelphia, PA. They were granted withholding of removal years ago.  Our client entered the United States on a valid L-1 and L-2 visa in November 2000.  Later, they were granted withholding of removal in July 2006 by the Philadelphia Immigration Court.  They have remained in the United States thereafter.

In November 2013, our clients’ son became a naturalized U.S. citizen. However, for them to get a green card, their case should first be reopened in the Immigration Court for them to apply for adjustment of status either with the Court, or with the CIS should proceedings be terminated after reopening.

In May 2015, our clients contacted our office and sought legal assistance for their immigration matter. After consultation, our client retained us on May 14, 2015.  Upon retention, we first prepared and filed their U.S. citizen son’s I-130 petitions for them. We filed the I-130 petitions to the USCIS on May 20, 2015 and the USCIS approved the I-130s on October 5, 2015. Once the I-130s were approved, we filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen for our client to USICE-DHS office in Philadelphia.  Our cover brief explained how they got their withholding of removal status, approved of I-130, and their prima facie eligibility to apply for adjustment of status.

On April 11, 2016, the DHS office in Philadelphia agreed to join in the Motion to Reopen and Terminate Proceedings. The Joint Motion was then filed to the Philadelphia Immigration Court and upon reopening and termination, their adjustment of status applications can then be filed to the USCIS.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for 601 and 212 Hardship Waiver and Immigrant Visa Approval for Ecuadorian Client in Quito Ecuador

CASE:   Immigrant Visa / I-601A Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility / I-212 Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission Into the United States After Deportation or Removal

APPLICANT / BENEFICIARY: Ecuadorian

LOCATION: Quito, Ecuador (Visa Interview)

Our client came to the United States from Ecuador in March 1999 without inspection and admission. Later, he married his U.S. citizen wife in 2006. However, removal proceedings were initiated against him in March 2009 as an alien present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. With our assistance and representation, our client went to all of his court hearings and applied for Cancellation of Removal for Non-LPR. However, the Immigration Judge in the Cleveland Immigration Court denied our client’s application for relief.

After his case was denied, our client’s U.S. Citizen Wife filed an I-130 petition for him and this I-130 petition was approved on January 27, 2014. However, needed a waiver of inadmissibility to become a green card holder.

INA § 212(i) provides for a discretionary waiver of the entry without inspection inadmissibility ground. To qualify for the waiver, the alien must establish that his or her US Citizen spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission. INA § 212(i)(1). In addition to the equities presented, the USCIS may consider the nature of the inadmissibility ground.

There is a seminal BIA case that deals with this waiver.  In Matter of Cervantes, 22 I & N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), the BIA identified the factors to be considered in determining whether a qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship if the alien were denied admission.  Those factors include: the presence of LPR or USC family ties both within and outside the United States; the conditions in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties to that country; the financial impact of departure from the United States; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to the unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.

Before the I-130 was approved, our client took voluntary departure from the United States in November 2013 as he tried to get an immigrant visa through consular processing with an I-601 waiver. He went back to Ecuador. Once he returned there, with our legal assistance, we filed his immigrant visa package to the National Visa Center on June 27, 2014.

Our client’s I-601 application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife suffers from a great degree of medical and psychological hardship. In the I-601 brief and supporting documents, our office included extensive medical reports of his wife.  We argued that it would be extremely difficult for our client’s wife to get the same level of therapy and satisfactory access to medical services in Ecuador in case she joins our client there.

In our brief, we also argued that his wife will have difficulty in finding the same level of employment in Ecuador, and that his wife will face extreme financial and emotional difficulties if she joins him in Ecuador.

On February 12, 2015, we filed the I-601 waiver application which included the brief in support, his wife’s extensive medical and psychological examination records, and other documents that demonstrated hardship to his wife if she joins our client in Ecuador. Later, on November 25, 2015, our office also filed the  I-212 Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States after Deportation or Removal.

Eventually, his I-601 waiver and I-212 were approved on January 4, 2016. The U.S. Embassy in Quito, Ecuador informed our office that they scheduled an immigrant visa interview for our client. On January 26, 2016, our client appeared at his immigrant visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in Quito, and the Consulate officer approved his immigrant visa on the same day.

 

Now, our client can come back to the United States with an approved immigrant visa and he will get his green card in the mail within two months of his entry to the United States.  

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings Based on Approved I-130 for Nepalese Client in Houston Texas

CASE: Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings Based on an Approved I-130 Immediate Relative Spousal Petition

CLIENT: Nepalese

LOCATION: Houston, TX

Our client is a Nepalese citizen who came to the U.S. on an F-1 Student Visa.   Our client and his wife married in August 2013.  When they married, our client’s wife was a green card holder. Our client’s wife filed the I-130 petition for our client in August 2013 and it was approved by the USCIS later. Our client filed his adjustment of status application along with the I-130 petition, but it was denied due to his failure to maintain his status. After his I-485 adjustment of status application was denied, a Notice to Appear was issued against our client, and he was placed into removal proceeding.

His wife became a naturalized U.S. citizen in July 2015. Our client contacted our office and consulted with us for his potential relief. Based on the approved I-130 and his wife’s recent naturalization, we determined that we could file a joint motion to terminate his proceedings. Our client retained our office on July 15, 2015.  

On July 27, 2015, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to terminate proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents. However, we did not get any response from the Houston DHS office regarding their consent to terminate our client’s proceedings. We then filed with the Immigration Court and since the DHS did not oppose, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings without prejudice on January 27, 2016.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Termination of Removal Proceedings and Adjustment of Status Approval for Chinese Client in Cleveland Ohio

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition / I-485 Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Chinese
LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client is a Chinese citizen who came to the U.S. on a B-2 Visitor’s visa in September 2011. She has stayed in the United States since then. Because of her overstay, the Notice to Appear was issued and our client was placed in removal proceeding.

Our client currently resides in Ohio with her current U.S. Citizen husband. They were married in October. After our office was retained, our office filed an I-130 Petition with bona fide marriage evidence on January 15, 2015.  While the I-130 petition was pending, our client appeared at the Cleveland Immigration Court for her master calendar hearing.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office represented her at the hearing, did the pleading and sought for adjustment of status relief upon the approval of the I-130 petition.

Her I-130 petition was approved by the USCIS on June 24, 2015 without any interview or RFE request.  Once the I-130 was approved, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents. The DHS counsel in Cleveland agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice in September 2015.

After her removal proceeding was terminated, our client retained us again for her I-485 adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on November 6, 2015. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permit all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On January 26, 2016, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our client.  After the interview, her I-485 application was approved.  Now, our client is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }