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 Termination of Removal Proceedings for Algerian Client in North Carolina

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

CLIENT: Algerian
LOCATION: North Carolina

Our client is from Algeria who came to the U.S. on a F-1 Student Visa in 2010. After he graduated, he overstayed his status. Because of his overstay, he was placed in removal proceedings in Charlotte, NC. His case was administratively closed in August 2014.  

Our client married her U.S. citizen wife in August 2016 in North Carolina. In December 2016, he contacted our office to seek legal assistance for his I-130 petition, representation of his removal proceedings, termination of removal proceedings, and his adjustment of status application with the USCIS.

After we were retained, our office prepared and filed the I-130 petition for our client and filed it to the USCIS on February 27, 2017. This I-130 petition was approved by the USCIS on July 31, 2017 without an interview. Then, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with an attached I-485 application and its supporting documents. The DHS counsel in Charlotte, NC agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Eventually, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on September 21, 2017. Now, he can file his I-485 adjustment of status application to the USCIS to obtain his green card.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Successful Adjustment of Status after Motion to Remand with BIA, I-130 Approval, Termination of Removal Proceedings for Moldovan Client in Cleveland Ohio

CASE: I-485 adjustment of status
CLIENT: Moldovan
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States on a valid J-1 visa from Moldova in June 2007. He remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted. Later, he was placed in deportation proceedings due to his overstay and a Notice to Appear was issued. His asylum relief was denied by the Immigration Judge in April 2012, but an appeal was timely filed.  The BIA appeal was pending when our client contacted our office in March 2014.

While the BIA appeal was pending, our client married his U.S. citizen wife in February 2013. His wife filed an I-130 petition for our client on March 7, 2013.  He contacted our office for legal assistance for Motion to Remand and possible adjustment of status if the Motion is granted.  We explained to him that the Motion to Remand procedure and he retained our office on April 8, 2014. On April 17, 2014, we prepared and filed a Motion to Remand for Adjustment of Status Based on a Pending I-130 on behalf our client. You typically want the I-130 to be approved prior to filing the Motion to Remand, but by submitting the actual I-130 application itself and its supporting documents attached to the Motion, you can show that it is approvable.

In Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992), the BIA found that a motion to remand must conform to the same standards as a motion to reopen, where the respondent presents new evidence which would likely change the result of the case. In a Motion to Reopen before the BIA, the Applicant must show that the evidence is material, unavailable at time of original hearing, and could not have been discovered or presented at the original hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). In this case, the adjustment of status relief was not available for our client at his previous hearing since he was not married his U.S. Citizen wife.  

Our office filed a Motion to Remand for Adjustment of Status based on a pending I-130 to the BIA on April 17, 2014. We argued that our client will be eligible for adjustment of status once the I-130 is approved since he had a legal entry to the U.S., has no criminal records, and has no other grounds of inadmissibility. We also attached lots of bona fide marital evidence between our client and his U.S. citizen wife to demonstrate the I-130 petition is approvable.

While his motion was pending before the BIA, he and his wife appeared for the I-130 interview on May 5, 2014. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client at our office.  On the day of our client’s I-130 interview, our attorney accompanied them at the Cleveland, OH USCIS. The interview went well, I-130 petition was approved for our client.

On June 6, 2014, the BIA granted our motion, reopened our client’s case, and the record was remanded for further proceedings.

His case was remanded and scheduled for master calendar hearing on July 12, 2017. With the approved I-130 petition, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to terminate proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents on July 3, 2017. The DHS counsel in Cleveland, OH agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on July 12, 2017 hearing.  

After his removal proceeding was terminated, our client retained us again for his I-485 adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on August 2, 2017. 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 October 19, 2017, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS. Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied our clients as well.  After the interview, his I-485 application was approved.  Now, our client became a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Social Group Asylum Approval for Saudi Arabian Client in Brooklyn New York

CASE: Asylum

CLIENT: Saudi Arabian

LOCATION: Bethpage NY Asylum Office

Our client retained us in July 2015 to help him with his asylum case. He is a Saudi Arabian living in New York. He was scared to go back home to Saudi Arabia, fearing that he will be persecuted on account of his social group.

We helped him prepare his asylum application, going over several drafts until his claim was as detailed as possible. Names, addresses, dates, and all possible issues relevant to his asylum claim were addressed. We also asked him to provide supporting documents corroborating his claim, some of which were letters from friends in the U.S. who were part of his social group. Our firm also did some research on articles pertaining to his particular claim, and the type of persecution that members of his social group suffer in Saudi Arabia.

The asylum application was filed on August 26, 2015. On August 14, 2017, the CIS issued an interview notice for his asylum case, scheduled for August 31, 2017 in Bethpage, New York. Prior to his interview, our office prepared him thoroughly for his case, going over practice interviews by phone to make sure he is able to address questions the asylum officer would ask. On August 31, 2017, attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our client at his interview in Bethpage New York. The interview went well and our client was able to answer all questions accordingly. There were no requests for evidence prior to nor after the interview. Everything went smoothly.

On September 14, 2017, the CIS in Bethpage NY approved our client’s asylum case. He is now an asylee and will be eligible to apply for permanent resident status in one year. He also would obtain his work permit in about two weeks.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for After Joint Motion to Reopen and Terminate, Green Card Approval for Pakistani Clients in Philadelphia Pennsylvania

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

Our clients are Pakistani citizens who currently reside in Philadelphia, PA with their U.S. Citizen sons.  Our client entered the United States with valid L-1 and L-2 visas 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 by 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 thorough consultations, 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 USCIS on May 20, 2015 and the USCIS approved the I-130s on October 5, 2015. Once the I-130s were approved, we filed 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 reviewing period, the DHS office in Philadelphia finally agreed to join in 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 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.

Once their cases were terminated they retained our office again for their I-485 adjustment of status applications. Our firm prepared and filed the Adjustment of Status Applications and the Employment Authorization Document on June 23, 2016.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time.

Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client via conference call. On July 25, 2017, our clients were interviewed at the Philadelphia Pennsylvania USCIS.  The interview went well, and on July 31, 2017, their green card applications were approved.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Motion to Remand with BIA to Apply for Adjustment of Status and Termination of Removal Proceedings Approved for Moldovan Client in Cleveland Ohio

CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition
CLIENT: Moldovan
LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client came to the United States on a valid J-1 visa from Romania in June 2007. He remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted. Later, he was placed in deportation proceedings due to his overstay and a Notice to Appear was issued. His asylum relief was denied by the Immigration Judge in April 2012, but an appeal was timely filed.  The BIA appeal was pending when our client contacted our office in March 2014.

While the BIA appeal was pending, our client married his U.S. citizen wife in February 2013. His wife filed an I-130 petition for our client on March 7, 2013.  He contacted our office for legal assistance for a Motion to Remand and possible adjustment of status if the Motion is granted.  We explained to him that the Motion to Remand procedure and he retained our office on April 8, 2014. On April 17, 2014, we prepared and filed a Motion to Remand for Adjustment of Status Based on a Pending I-130 on behalf our client. You typically want the I-130 to be approved prior to filing the Motion to Remand, but by submitting the actual I-130 application itself and its supporting documents attached to the Motion, you can show that it is approvable.

In Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992), the BIA found that a motion to remand must conform to the same standards as a motion to reopen, where the respondent presents new evidence which would likely change the result of the case. In a Motion to Reopen before the BIA, the Applicant must show that the evidence is material, unavailable at time of original hearing, and could not have been discovered or presented at the original hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). In this case, the adjustment of status relief was not available for our client at his previous hearing since he was not married his U.S. Citizen wife.  

Our office filed a Motion to Remand for Adjustment of Status based on a pending I-130 to the BIA on April 17, 2014. We argued that our client will be eligible for adjustment of status once the I-130 is approved since he had a legal entry to the U.S., has no criminal records, and has no other grounds of inadmissibility. We also attached lots of bona fide marital evidence between our client and his U.S. citizen wife to demonstrate the I-130 petition is approvable.

While his motion was pending before the BIA, he and his wife appeared for the I-130 interview on May 5, 2014. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client at our office.  On the day of our client’s I-130 interview, our attorney accompanied them at the Cleveland, OH USCIS. The interview went well, I-130 petition was approved for our client.

On June 6, 2014, the BIA granted our motion, reopened our client’s case, and the record was remanded for further proceedings.

His case was remanded and scheduled for master calendar hearing on July 12, 2017. With the approved I-130 petition, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to terminate proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents on July 3, 2017. The DHS counsel in Cleveland, OH agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice on July 12, 2017 hearing.  Now, he can file his I-485 adjustment of status application to USCIS to obtain his green card.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Green Card Approval After Successful Termination of Removal Proceedings for Nepalese Client in Houston Texas

CASE: I-485 Adjustment of Status / 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 were married, our client’s wife was a green card holder. Our client’s wife filed an 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 status. After his I-485 adjustment of status application was denied, a Notice to Appear was issued against our client, and he was placed in 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 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. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to terminate without prejudice in September 2015.  

After the multiple follow-ups, our office filed a Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings with the I-485 application and supporting documents to the Houston Immigration Court on January 6, 2016. The DHS counsel in Houston did not oppose the Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings without prejudice on January 27, 2016.

After his removal proceeding was terminated, our client retained us again for his I-485 adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on April 6, 2016. 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 via conference call. On April 25, 2017, our client was interviewed at the Houston, Texas USCIS.  Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients. After the interview, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

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 }