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 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 Successful Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Termination of Removal Proceedings for Pakistani Client in Indiana

CASE: Joint Motion to Reopen and Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Pakistani
LOCATION: Indiana; San Francisco (EOIR)

Our client is from Pakistan who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in May 2010. He remained in the United States even after his authorized stay expired.  Later, he filed for asylum and withholding of removal. However, he could not attend his hearing due to an emergency medical issue. He even notified the immigration court but his submission was procedurally incorrect (this was used as an exhibit in our motion). Subsequently, he received an order of removal in absentia. A few months later, his jewelry store got robbed too, leaving them with no money at that time to afford a lawyer for a proper Motion to Reopen.

Our client remained in the United States with the final order of removal. He married his current U.S. citizen wife. His wife filed an I-130 petition in April 2014 with help from of our office, which was subsequently approved by the USCIS in November 2014.

Our client and his wife were wondering whether he has any viable option for his immigration situation.  After careful review, our office determined that we can file a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen based on the I-130 approval and Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum.

Once retained, our office filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the San Francisco DHS office on February 13, 2015. Our office prepared an extensive brief along with multiple supporting documents to request a favorable exercise of DHS’s discretion on this case. We argued that DHS should consider the following factors as set forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum: (1) whether adjustment of status was available at the prior hearing; (2) whether the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status; and (3) whether the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Bo Cooper, Motions to Reopen for Consideration of Adjustment of Status (May 17, 2001). In considering these factors, as delineated in William J. Howard’s October 24, 2005, Memorandum, “Where a motion to reopen for adjustment of status… is filed on behalf of an alien with substantial equities, no serious criminal or immigration violations, and who is legally eligible to be granted relief except that the motion is beyond the 90-day limitation contained in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23, strongly consider exercising prosecutorial discretion and join in this motion to reopen to permit the alien to pursue such relief to the immigration court.” William J. Howard, Prosecutorial Discretion (October 24, 2005).

Our office argued that if our client’s case is reopened, he will be prima facie eligible to adjust his status. Our client has been living in the United States since 2010, has no criminal record, and has an approved I-130 petition based on his marriage to his U.S citizen spouse.

As a result, the DHS office agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and Terminate. The DHS filed the joint motion to the San Francisco Immigration Court, and the San Francisco Immigration Court re-opened and terminated our client’s case on March 3, 2015. Now he can file for adjustment of status and work permit with the CIS.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen with DHS Approved for Indonesian Client in Kentucky

CASE: Joint Motion to Reopen and Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition

CLIENT: Indonesian
LOCATION: Kentucky; San Francisco (EOIR)

Our client is from Indonesia who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitor’s visa in March 2004. She has remained in the United States past her authorized period of stay.  Later, she filed for asylum and withholding of removal in April 2006, but the Immigration Judge in San Francisco, CA denied all applications for relief.

She filed an appeal with the BIA, but in June 2007, the Board affirmed the Immigration Judge’s findings and dismissed the appeal. She then proceeded to appeal her case at the Federal Circuit Court, but was denied. She even filed a Motion to Reopen, which was also denied in January 2013.

Our client remained in the United States with the final order of removal.

She married her current U.S. citizen husband in August 2012. Her husband filed an I-130 petition in November 2012, which was subsequently approved by the USCIS in November 2013.

Our client and her husband consulted our firm. They wish to know if she has any viable options for her immigration status.

After careful review, our office determined that we can file a Request to the DHS to join in a Motion to Reopen based on the I-130 approval and Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum.

Our client retained our office on December 4, 2013.

Once retained, our office prepared and filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen and Terminate to the San Francisco DHS office on February 21, 2014. Our office prepared an extensive brief along with multiple supporting documents to request a favorable exercise of DHS’s discretion on this case. Our client’s husband was a member of the US army, deployed in Afghanistan several times, and that was part of our argument.

We argued that DHS should consider the following factors as set forth in Bo Cooper’s May 17, 2001 Memorandum: (1) whether adjustment of status was available at the prior hearing; (2) whether the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status; and (3) whether the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Bo Cooper, Motions to Reopen for Consideration of Adjustment of Status (May 17, 2001). In considering these factors, as delineated in William J. Howard’s October 24, 2005, Memorandum, “Where a motion to reopen for adjustment of status… is filed on behalf of an alien with substantial equities, no serious criminal or immigration violations, and who is legally eligible to be granted relief except that the motion is beyond the 90-day limitation contained in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23, strongly consider exercising prosecutorial discretion and join in this motion to reopen to permit the alien to pursue such relief to the immigration court.” William J. Howard, Prosecutorial Discretion (October 24, 2005).

Our office argued that if our client’s case is reopened, she will be prima facie eligible to adjust her status. Our client has been living in the United States since 2004, has no criminal record, and has an approved I-130 petition based on the marriage to U.S citizen spouse.

Eventually, the DHS office agreed to join in our Motion to Reopen and Terminate on April 21, 2014. The DHS filed the joint motion to the San Francisco Immigration Court, and our client case will be reopened and terminated soon.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for I-130 Motion to Reopen Nunc Pro Tunc Approval for Indian Client in California

CASE: I-130 Motion to Reopen Nunc Pro Tunc

CLIENT: U.S. Citizen Petitioner in California / Indian Beneficiaries in India

LOCATION: California

Our client is a naturalized U.S. citizen who resides in California. In August 2004, our client filed three I-130 petitions for her siblings who are in India.  Shortly after the filing of the I-130 petitions, our client received a receipt notice from the USCIS. Since the time that our client filed the I-130s, she has never moved and has never received any Requests for Evidence or decisions in the mail.

After she filed the petition, for the next nine years, she has always called the USCIS Customer Service Center to inquire about the status of the I-130 petitions. The CIS customer service personnel have always told our client that there were all in process. Petitioner has contacted the USCIS Customer Service Center throughout the last 9 years (from 2004 to 2013), and the only answer she got from the USCIS was that the Petition was still pending.

In August of 2013, our client made an Infopass appointment with the local USCIS office and went. When she went to the Infopass appointment, the officer there informed her that one of her cases was denied due to abandonment in 2009 and two of her I-130 petition cases were administratively closed in 2009 as well.

Over the past 9 years, our client and her siblings were waiting for the CIS decision with regard to the I-130 petition. Our client timely filed all requested documents at the time of initial filing of the I-130. There were no Requests for Evidence or denial decisions received in the mail. Despite her efforts, our client never received any succeeding notice about the I-130 petition. Only in August 2013 did she find out about the real processing status of the 3 Petitions when she went for an Infopass.

Our client became so disappointed and sought legal assistance to resolve this matter.

She retained our office on September 18, 2013 and our office promptly prepared and filed a Motion to Reopen to the USCIS the three petitions and asked the Service to exercise its discretion in re-opening nun pro tunc the cases beyond the filing deadline since our client has never been served nor informed by the CIS with regard to the administrative closure of the I-130 petitions.

Moreover, our Motion requested the CIS to summarily approve the I-130 petition for our client’s siblings because our client and her siblings have been waiting for the CIS decision for more than 9 years, without any decision from the USCIS.

The Motion noted that it would be extremely unfortunate and unfair for our client and her siblings if she has to re-file the I-130 petitions again since the priority date will be moved and they would have to wait another ten years.

Our office filed the Motions with Form I-290Bs on September 24, 2013.

On February 17, 2014, the USCIS California Center informed us that the cases are transferred to National Visa Center.

On February 25, 2014, the USCIS moved to reopen the matter, and also approved the two of her three I-130s with the old priority date.

Two of client’s 9-year pending I-130 petitions finally got an approval, and once priority dates become current, her siblings can file an Immigrant Visa in India, without having to re-file another I-130 and wait 10 more years.

{ 0 comments }

CASE:  Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Pakistani
LOCATION: Houston, TX

Our client is a Pakistani citizen who currently resides in Houston, Texas with her U.S. Citizen husband.  Our client entered the United States on a valid L-2 visa in November 2000.  She was  then granted withholding of removal in July 2006 by the Philadelphia Immigration Court as a derivative beneficiary of her father’s sought relief.  In March 2009, our client married her U.S. citizen husband and her husband filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client.  The I-130 petition was approved in October, 2010.  However, due to bad advice by their previous counsel, they also filed an I-485 application with the USCIS which was understandably denied due to lack of jurisdiction considering she is in withholding of removal status.  They were not informed that our client’s case should first be reopened in the Immigration Court before she can apply for adjustment of status either with the Court, or with the CIS should proceedings be terminated after reopening.

In March 2011, our client and her U.S. citizen husband contacted our office and sought legal assistance for her immigration matters. Our client retained us on March 29, 2011.  Upon retention, we filed a Request to Join in a Motion to Reopen to the USICE-DHS office in Philadelphia.  Our cover brief explained the withholding of removal status, the approval of the I-130, and other equitable factors totaling 28 exhibits.

We called the DHS office in Philadelphia several times and on November 23, 2011, they finally agreed to join in the Motion to Reopen and an assigned counsel signed the Joint Motion. Now our client can apply for Adjustment of Status with the Immigration Court, or with the CIS upon a possible termination by the Court.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

captcha

For other success stories, please click here.

Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free immigration consultations.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: I-130 Motion to Reopen Nunc Pro Tunc
CLIENT: Indian
LOCATION: Ohio

Our client is a naturalized U.S. citizen who resides in Ohio. In April 2001, our client filed an I-130 petition for his brother who is in India.  About a year later, our client received mail from the USCIS requesting him to submit his brother’s birth records.  Upon receipt of the letter, our client timely mailed the requested documents to the Nebraska Service Center.  However, he had not heard from the USCIS with regard to the status of the I-130 petition.

In November, 2003, our client contacted the CIS Nebraska Service Center to ask about the status of the I-130 petition.  In response to his request, USCIS informed him that his records were located at the Cleveland District Office.  Thereafter, he contacted the Cleveland District office.  However, he never got a response from the District office.  While disappointed, he kept sending letters to the CIS Nebraska Center to request the status of the I-130 petition.  Despite his efforts, he did not get any response from the USCIS.  Moreover, from the time he filed the I-130 in 2001 to 2006, he never moved to a different address.

On September 16, 2010, after following up again with the CIS Nebraska Service Center, Petitioner received an email and the Service informed him that the I-130 petition was administratively closed on September 22, 2005 and the petition was no longer pending. Our client became so disappointed and sought legal assistance to resolve this matter.  He retained our office on October 13, 2010 and Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu promptly prepared and filed a Motion to Reopen to the USCIS and asked the Service to exercise its discretion in re-opening nun pro tunc the case beyond the filing deadline since our client has never been served nor informed by the CIS with regard to the administrative closure of the I-130 petition.

Moreover, the Motion requested the CIS to summarily approve the I-130 petition for our client’s brother because our client and his brother have been waiting for the CIS decision for more than 9 years, and since he also responded to the purported Request for Evidence.  The Motion noted that it would be extremely unfortunate and unfair for our client and his brother if he has to re-file the I-130 petition again since the priority date will be moved and he would have to wait another ten years.

After we filed the Motion, his case was transferred to the Nebraska Service Center.  On March 1, 2011, the USCIS Nebraska Center informed us that the USCIS moved to reopen the matter, and also approved the I-130.  Our client’s 9-years pending I-130 petition finally got an approval, and once priority dates become current, his brother can file an Immigrant Visa in India, without having to re-file another I-130 and wait 10 more years.

FREE CONSULTATIONS

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

captcha

{ 4 comments }