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 and I-485 Parent Petition and Adjustment of Status for Mother Approved for Filipina Client in New York NY

CASE: I-130 (Petition for Mother) and I-485 Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Filipina

LOCATION: New York, NY

Our client retained us to petition her mother for a green card. Our client was born and raised in the Philippines, but was naturalized in the United States. She contacted our office in late May of 2015 and discussed with us the green card process. After consultation, she retained our office on May 29, 2015.

Once retained, our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on July 16, 2015 for her mother.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and a work permit all came on time. Eventually, on November 18, 2015, without an interview, our client’s mother’s adjustment of status application was approved. Now, she is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Immigrant Visa Approval Based on Approved I-824 Follow-to-Join for Petitioner in Connecticut and Beneficiary in Seoul, South Korea

CASE: I-824 (Follow-to-join) based on approved I-140 and Consular Processing (Immigrant Visa)

CLIENT: Korean LPR Petitioner; Korean Beneficiary in South Korea

LOCATION: Petitioner: Connecticut; Beneficiary: Seoul, South Korea

Our client is a Lawful Permanent Resident who got his green card under the NIW category with our office’s legal assistance in 2014.  He has a wife, and our client and his wife married before his adjustment of status application was adjudicated. However, his wife was in South Korea when he got his green card due to her employment. She could have been a derivative applicant at the time of our client’s green card filing, but she was not in the United States at that time. Nevertheless, we explained to our client that we can do an I-824 filing and consular processing for his wife when she wants to permanently move to the United States.

In May 2014, he contacted our office to do an I-824 follow-to-join application to the USCIS so that his wife can file an immigrant visa and come as a derivative beneficiary of the I-140 petition. He retained our office on May 13, 2014 to help bring his wife to the States.

After we were retained, our office filed an I-824 follow-to-join application to the USCIS on May 19, 2014. After the I-824 was filed, everything went smoothly and the receipt notices came on time. The I-824 application was approved by the USCIS on June 19, 2014 and this case was transferred to the National Visa Center.

After the I-824 approval, we filed the immigrant visa packets to the National Visa Center on October 1, 2014, who in turn forwarded the client’s materials to the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea. An interview notice was set for the client at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul. On February 27, 2015, our client’s wife appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea. The interview went well, and eventually, on the same day, the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea approved and issued her immigrant visa.

With the approved Immigrant visa, our client’s wife can come to the United States. She will get her green card within two weeks.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Taekwondo Coach H1B Extension Approval for Taekwondo Academy Petitioner in Hartford CT and South Korean Client

CASE: H-1B Visa Extension Petition

PETITIONER:  Taekwondo Academy in Hartford, CT

BENEFICIARY: Master Level Taekwondo Coach from South Korea

Our client is a Taekwondo Academy (martial arts school) located near Harford, Connecticut.  They contacted our office in late-October to seek legal assistance for their foreign employee’s H-1B extension.

The beneficiary obtained his Bachelor’s Degree in Physical Education. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is a Master Level Taekwondo Coach.  He has been working for the Petitioner for last three years with a valid H-1B visa. We argued that this position is a “specialty occupation” and that the minimum requirement for this position is a Bachelor’s Degree in Physical Education or its equivalent.

After retention, our office promptly filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on November 8, 2013 via premium processing. However, the USCIS Vermont Service Center issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) on November 25, 2013.

The USCIS argued that the offered position does not qualify as a “specialty occupation.” They claimed 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 5-page response brief with 8 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. Furthermore, we included letters from experts to demonstrate that the bachelor’s degree is a minimum educational qualification for Taekwondo coach positions in the industry and illustrate the complexity of the position.

Our office filed the response to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on December 19, 2013. Our client’s H-1B application was approved on December 24, 2013. Now the Beneficiary can work for the Petitioner on an H-1B status until December 31, 2016

{ 0 comments }

Post image for H1B Approval for Architectural Firm Petitioner in Stamford CT and Architectural Draftsperson Beneficiary from Turkey

CASE: H-1B Visa Petition

PETITIONER:  Architectural Firm in Stamford, CT

BENEFICIARY: Architectural Draftsperson from Turkey

Our client is an architectural firm in Stamford, CT.  They contacted our office in late-February to seek legal assistance for their foreign employee. His wife also retained our firm but for a part-time position, and this was approved recently too, as stated in one of our success stories.

The beneficiary obtained his Bachelor’s Degree in Architecture. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is an architectural draftsperson.  We argued that this position is a “specialty occupation” and that the minimum requirement for this position is a Bachelor’s Degree in Architecture or its equivalent.

After retention, our office promptly filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on April 1, 2013 via regular processing. However, the USCIS Vermont Service Center issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) on September 4, 2013.

The USCIS argued that the offered position does not qualify as a “specialty occupation.” They claimed 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 3-page response brief with 6 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. Furthermore, we included beneficiary’s sample work to further illustrate the complexity of the position.

Our office filed the response to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on September 23, 2013. Our client’s H-1B application was approved on November 13, 2013. Now the Beneficiary can work for the Petitioner on an H-1B status until September 12, 2016

{ 0 comments }

Post image for H1B Approval for Architectural Firm Petitioner in Stamford CT and Architectural Draftsperson Beneficiary from Turkey

CASE: H-1B Visa Petition
PETITIONER:  Architectural Firm in Stamford, CT
BENEFICIARY: Architectural Draftsperson from Turkey

Our client is an architectural firm in Stamford, CT.  They contacted our office in late-February to seek legal assistance for their foreign employee.

The beneficiary obtained her Bachelor’s Degree in Architecture. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is an architectural draftsperson.  We argued that this position a “specialty occupation” and that the minimum requirement for this position is a Bachelor’s Degree in Architecture or its equivalent.

After retention, our office promptly filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on April 1, 2013 via regular processing. However, the USCIS Vermont Service Center issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) on September 5, 2013.

The USCIS argued that the offered position does not qualify as a “specialty occupation.” They claimed 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 3-page response brief with 9 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. Furthermore, we included beneficiary’s sample work to further illustrate the complexity of the position.

Our office filed the response to the USCIS Vermont Service Center on September 23, 2013. Our client’s H-1B application was approved on October 25, 2013. Now the Beneficiary can work for the Petitioner on an H-1B status until September 16, 2016

{ 0 comments }

Post image for G4 Derivative to Green Card I-360Approval for Filipina Client in Connecticut

CASE: I-360 and adjustment of status
CLIENT: Filipina
LOCATION: Connecticut

Our client’s father is a G-4 visa holder from the Philippines who is working for an international organization in the United States.  He has a daughter who came to the United States with him and sought legal assistance from our firm for his daughter’s permanent residency in the United States, based on the special immigrant provisions of the INA.

INA 101(a)(27)(I)(i) defines such an alien as “an immigrant who is the unmarried son or daughter of an officer or employee, or of a former officer or employee, of an international organization described in paragraph (15)(G)(i), and who:

(I)                While maintaining the status of a G4 nonimmigrant, has resided and been physically present in the United States for periods totaling at least one-half of the seven years before the date of application and for a period or periods aggregating at least seven years between the ages of five and 21 years

(II)             Applies for adjustment of status no later than his or her twenty-fifth birthday…

Based on this provision, we advised our client that his daughter is eligible for adjustment of status. She has been physically present in the U.S. for a period totaling at least one-half of the seven years before this date, aggregating at least seven years between the age of 5 and 21.

Our client’s father retained our office on February 1, 2013.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-360 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on February 17, 2013.  We included the letter from her father’s international organization for verification purposes and her high school transcripts as well. Once the applications were filed, everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time.

Eventually, on June 26, 2013, the USCIS approved both the I-360 and I-485 applications for our client’s daughter.  She now is a green card holder.

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Adjustment of Status – First Preference Petition

CLIENT: Jamaican

LOCATION: Connecticut

Our client has been on F-1 status for many years. He went to colleges in the United States, and has maintained his status lawfully throughout his stay in the United States.  His mother was a naturalized U.S. citizen, and wanted to file her I-130 petition on behalf of her son.  However, since our client was over 21 years old at the time of filing the I-130 petition, our client had to wait 5 years to have a current priority date.

As mentioned before, parents, spouses and children of U.S. citizens are considered “immediate relatives,” and these “immediate relatives” do not need to worry for backlogged priority dates.  However, if children of U.S. citizens are over 21 years old at the time the I-130 petition is filed, then they are not considered “immediate relatives” anymore and would have to wait. They would then fall under the 1st preference category.  (According to the January 2011 Visa Bulletin, the priority date is January 1, 2005).

Our client’s mother filed an I-130 petition for her son back in January of 2005 and this I-130 petition was approved.  Our client retained us in July of last year and discussed with us his adjustment of status issues. On August 12, 2010, our firm filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application and I-765 Work Authorization application.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time.  There was no Request for Evidence.  On November 15, 2010, our client was interviewed in Hartford, Connecticut.   On December 30, 2010, the USCIS approved his adjustment application. After several years in the U.S., our client if finally a green card holder.

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

{ Comments on this entry are closed }