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.
From Our Clients
Please read our compiled reviews from the internet, from Google to AVVO, on what our clients have said about our firm.
One of the fastest and most common immigration cases are those based on marriage to a US Citizen.
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.
H-1B petitions for employment in specialty occupations, from computer analysts, engineers, nurse managers, accountants, architects, doctors, feel free to contact us.
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 Priority Date Retention Nurse Immigrant Visa Approval for Filipina Client in Phnom Penh Cambodia

CASE: Immigrant Visa / I-140 (EB-3 Category) / Schedule A / Old Priority Date Retention

EMPLOYER: Nursing / Rehabilitation Center

BENEFICIARY: Filipina Registered Nurse in Cambodia

LOCATION: Beneficiary: Cambodia / Petitioner: Houston, TX

Our client’s beneficiary is a registered nurse from the Philippines licensed in the state of Texas. Currently, she is in Cambodia. Her prospective employer was willing to petition her for a third-preference employment immigrant visa petition (I-140). Our client also has an approved EB-3 I-140 petition with a priority date of June 2007.

Since she is a registered nurse, she is eligible for “Schedule A” classification. The Department of Labor (DOL) maintains a schedule of occupations in its regulations, Schedule A included, for which the individual permanent labor certification procedure is not required. The schedule of pre-certified occupations is referred to as Schedule A, and is included in DOL regulations at 20 CFR 656.10. Based on an occupation’s inclusion on Schedule A, an employer may file an immigrant visa petition (I-140) directly with the (USCIS) without first going to the DOL for a labor certification. Usually, prior to filing I-140 petitions (EB-2 or EB-3 category), the employer must file a Labor Certification to the Department of Labor. However, for Schedule A cases, the employer does not have to go through the labor certification process. The position of Professional Nurses is included in Schedule A.

Also, under 8 CFR 204.5(e):

“Retention of section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) priority date. A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) or 205 of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.”

As mentioned above, our client’s approved I-140 petition was not denied, was actually approved, and was never revoked at any point. Thus, by virtue of 8 CFR 204.5(e), this succeeding I-140 Petition by our client’s prospective employer for our client is entitled to the previous priority date.

Our client has a nursing degree and has several years of related experience. Our firm told her that her potential employer can petition her as a Registered Nurse under the schedule A category. More importantly, since the priority date of her previous I-140 was current, she can eventually apply for her immigrant visa via consular processing. Our office was retained on December 16, 2015 and started on her Prevailing Wage Request.

We filed the I-140 application on March 10, 2016 via premium processing. We included the job offer letter, the notice of filing, her previous I-140 approval notice, and other necessary supporting documents. However, the USCIS issued RFE and alleged that the notice of filing document was not submitted. Though we properly included the notice of filing document at the initial filing of I-140 petition, our office filed the “notice of filing (job opening)” document again on March 25, 2016.  Eventually, on March 28, 2016, the I-140 was approved and it retained our client’s old priority date.  

Once her I-140 was approved, our client retained our office again for her immigrant visa processing. Once we were retained, our office filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center on July 12, 2016, who in turn forwarded the client’s materials to the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. An interview notice was set for the client at the U.S. Embassy in Cambodia. On May 16, 2017, our client appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The interview went well, and the Embassy approved and issued her immigrant visa.

With the approved Immigrant Visa, our client can come to the United States immediately, and she will get her green card within two months of entry.


Post image for Compliance Manager H-1B Approval for Nursing Care Company, Cambodian Client in Ohio

CASE: H-1B Visa Petition

PETITIONER:  Nursing Care Company in Ohio

BENEFICIARY: Cambodian Compliance Manager

Our client is a Nursing Care Company in Ohio that works with individuals and doctors to design home care plans to meet their needs. They contacted our office in the middle of March 2013 to seek legal assistance for its foreign beneficiary’s H-1B visa petition.

The beneficiary is a Cambodian who obtained her Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree in Law in Cambodia, and also an LLM from George Washington University. The proffered position for the Beneficiary was for a Compliance Manager which we argued qualified as a specialty occupation. We argued that the minimum requirement for this position is a Bachelor’s Degree in Law or its equivalent.

Upon retention, our firm prepared and eventually filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on April 1, 2013 via regular processing. The USCIS Vermont Service Center issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) on May 23, 2013.

The USCIS argued that the offered position does not qualify as a “specialty occupation.” They claimed that the business was new and that a Bachelor’s degree was not required for this position.  They claimed that the beneficiary’s position is not specialized and complex enough to be qualified as a specialty occupation as the law requires.

In response to the RFE, our office argued in an 6-page response brief with 10 exhibits that the nature of the specific duties are so specialized and complex that knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a Bachelor’s degree.  Moreover, we argued that the degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations.

Our office filed the response to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on June 12, 2013. Our client’s H-1B application was approved on September 17, 2013. Now the Beneficiary can work for the Petitioner on an H-1B status until September 23, 2016.


Post image for Marriage Based I130 for Cambodian Client Reaffirmed for Consular Processing Despite Notice of Intent to Revoke

CASE: I-130 (Response to Notice of Intent to Revoke)

CLIENT: US Citizen Petitioner; Cambodian Beneficiary

LOCATION: Petitioner: Cleveland, Ohio; Beneficiary: Cambodia

Our Chinese client contacted our office in the summer of 2011. He is a U.S. Citizen living in Cleveland, Ohio and sought legal assistance for his wife’s case in Cambodia. When he contacted our office, his wife already had an immigrant visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in Cambodia.  However, her interview did not go well, and the Embassy returned the petition to the USCIS for further review and action on November 1, 2011.  Eventually, the USCIS, based on a request from the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, issued a Notice of intent to revoke his I-130 petition on September 7, 2012.

Our client married his Cambodian citizen wife back in May 2010. Our client met his wife through his sister in March 2010.  Once he married, our client filed an I-130 petition for his wife in June 2010.  On February 7, 2011, the Director of the California Service Center approved the I-130 petition and his wife was eventually interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. However, the U.S. Embassy denied her immigrant visa application, and the approved I-130 petition was subsequently returned to the California Service Center by the Department of State for further review and action, and as stated above, the USCIS then issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke.

After our office was retained, we filed a Response to Intent to Revoke on October 3, 2012 with the USCIS California Service Center. Over 200 pages of documents and 20 exhibits were submitted in our response.

In our response brief, we rebutted each and every question that was raised by the USCIS regarding the bona fide nature of our client’s marriage to his wife in Cambodia. As a result, on November 15, 2012, the USCIS determined that they will not revoke our client’s I-130 petition.

Now, after the reaffirmation of the I-130 petition, our client’s wife will get her immigrant visa, and will be reunited with his husband after almost two years.


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



For other marriage-based green card success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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


<a href=””>Google</a>


CASE: I-601 Hardship Waiver of Inadmissibility
LOCATION: Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Our client’s wife is a U.S. citizen who resides in Columbus Ohio.  She contacted our office in September of 2011 about her husband’s immigrant visa application which needed an I-601 waiver for his inadmissibility. They married in December 2008 and our client filed an immigrant visa petition for her husband which was then denied in 2011 due to his inadmissibility. Our client’s husband was found inadmissible because he misrepresented his information when he applied for a visitor’s visa to come to the United States in 2003.  He used a different name when he applied for a visitor’s visa and this incident made him inadmissible under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the INA. (Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible).  Thus, in order to obtain an immigrant visa, our client’s husband needed to have an approved I-601 waiver.

Our client retained us on September 26, 2011 for the I-601 waiver. Our firm thoroughly analyzed whether the I-601 waiver application will likely be successful. Based on her story and surrounding circumstances (hardship to U.S. citizen wife [our client] if our client’s husband is deported or if his wife would accompany him to Cambodia), our office determined that her husband has a good chance of winning the I-601 application.

If someone is found to be inadmissible under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the INA, INA Section 212(i) provides for a discretionary waiver of the fraud or misrepresentation 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 Section 212(i)(l). In addition to the equities presented, the USCIS may consider the nature of the fraud or misrepresentation.

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 husband’s I-601 application had a good chance since our client’s U.S. Citizen wife from Columbus Ohio suffers from Hepatitis B, Chronic Hepatitis, Bronchitis, and has been going to doctors and hospitals since July 2007.  She also suffers from depression, anxiety, and insomnia due to the hardship of not having a father for her son or a husband to help with the expenses of raising their son.  In the I-601 brief and supporting documents, our office included extensive medical reports from our client. We argued that if our client’s husband is barred to enter the United States, extreme hardship to her is clearly foreseeable and evident. Our client’s wife is required to have continuous medical check-ups with her doctors for her Hepatitis B, Chronic Hepatitis, and Bronchitis. Also, it would be extremely difficult for her to get the same level of medical attention and satisfactory access to medical services in Cambodia in case our client’s wife joins her husband there. Our office also included the U.S. Department of State Travel Advisory Section for Cambodia to highlight the extremely poor medical services in Cambodia.

In our brief, we also argued that our client has maintained strong family ties in the United States, that she will have difficulty in finding the same level of employment in Cambodia, and that their U.S. Citizen son and our client will face extreme financial and emotional difficulties if he is barred to enter to the United States or if our client is forced to relocate to Cambodia with her son.

On February 7, 2012, we submitted our I-601 waiver application to the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia which included the brief in support, our client’s medical records, and other documents that demonstrated hardship to her if her husband is barred from coming to the United States.  This application was transferred to the USCIS Field Office in Bangkok, Thailand for adjudication. The I-601 waiver for our client’s husband was approved on March 21, 2012.  Now, without any inadmissible grounds, our client’s husband becomes eligible and will get an immigration visa to come to the United States. Now he can be together with his wife and their son in Columbus Ohio.


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


For other I-601 hardship waiver success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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