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 Dentist H-1B Approval for Dental Clinic Petitioner, Korean Dentist Beneficiary in Cleveland Ohio

CASE: H-1B Visa Petition

 

PETITIONER:  Dental Clinic

 

BENEFICIARY: Korean Dentist in Cleveland, OH

 

Our client is a dental clinic located in Cleveland, Ohio.  They contacted our office in early March of this year to seek legal assistance for a possible H-1B petition for their foreign employee.

 

The beneficiary obtained his Doctor of Dental Medicine in the United States. Moreover, he is a licensed dentist in the state of Ohio. The proffered position for the Beneficiary is an associate dentist which clearly qualifies as a specialty occupation.

 

Upon retention, our office prepared and eventually filed the H-1B visa petition with various supporting documents on March 31, 2015 via regular processing. This H-1B petition was selected in the lottery. Our client’s H-1B application was approved on July 21, 2015.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for F-1 Reinstatement Approval after Successful Response to RFE for Beninese Client in Cleveland, OH

CASE: F-1 Reinstatement / Response to RFE

CLIENT: Beninese

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client has been on F-1 status for many years and has studied in the United States. However, in 2011, he was arrested by an immigration officer while at a bus station to New York and was told that his F-1 status was terminated. Our client went back to his home country for the Spring Semester of 2010 due to his family’s medical emergency. Prior to his departur from the U.S., he consulted with the school’s international student officer and was advised that he could go and come back without any problem. Nevertheless, unbeknownst to him, his F-1 status was terminated by the school.

Our client immediately talked to his school’s ISO officer right after his “arrest” incident. The school’s ISO apologized to our client and told him that they will take care of the mistake. Our client went with his schooling and never encountered the issue again for the next few years. He even graduated his school and applied for the OPT which was later approved by the USCIS.

In 2014, our client decided to take another program, but he was informed by the International Student Officer that his “terminated F-1” status was never resolved, and that he would not be eligible for further studies until he gets his F-1 status reinstated.  Our client immediately prepared necessary documents for the reinstatement, and filed an F-1 reinstatement request to the USCIS. However, on May 11, 2015, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence. After the issuance of RFE, our client contacted our office and retained us on May 21, 2015.

Once retained, we helped our client obtain supporting documents for the F-1 reinstatement and prepared a response brief for the RFE. We fully explained why he had to go back to Benin, the circumstance of his F-1 termination, his financial ability to pursue his studies in the U.S., and reasons for his studies. On June 3, 2015, we filed the Response to RFE for his F-1 reinstatement with an extensive response brief and numerous supporting documents.

On June 27, 2015, the F-1 reinstatement was approved. Our client’s F-1 student is now valid and he now has retained valid non-immigrant status.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Despite Voluntary Departure in 2008, Immigrant Visa Approval Based on Approved I-140 (EB-3) for Petitioner in Virginia and Beneficiary in Seoul, South Korea

CASE: I-824 based on approved I-140 (EB-3) and Consular Processing (Immigrant Visa)

CLIENT: Commercial Linen Producing Company Petitioner; Korean Beneficiary in South Korea

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

 

Our client is in South Korea who took voluntary departure in 2008 to South Korea as a result of his removal proceedings. However, before he left the United States, his prospective employer filed an I-140 petition for him in April 2008 and later this I-140 petition was approved.

 

Our client and his family members went back to South Korea and did not think that they could come back to the United States because of their voluntary departure. Nevertheless, his prospective employer contacted our office in June 2013 and asked our legal assistance for our client’s immigrant visa processing. It was a very difficult case, but with the approved I-140 petition, our client wanted to take his last try. His I-140 petition was still valid.

 

After we were retained, our office filed an I-824 application to the USCIS on June 23, 2013 to move his case from the USCIS to National Visa Center. 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 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 July 25, 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 April 2, 2015, our client and his family members appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea. The interview went well; however, the consular officer wanted to see our client’s past immigration record including his previous I-485 denial. 

 

Our client did not have his I-485 denial notice, so our office filed a Track I FOIA on April 8, 2015 to the USCIS. On May 12, 2015, the USCIS issued a copy of his I-485 denial notice and our office immediately emailed our client this document. Then, our client submitted his I-485 denial notice and his other past immigration records.

 

Eventually, on May 27, 2015, the U.S. Embassy in Seoul issued immigrant visas for our client and his family members. With the approved Immigrant visas, they can come to the  United States as lawful permanent residents. 

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Immigrant Visa on I-130 F2A Approved for Chinese Clients in Cleveland, Ohio and China

CASE: I-130 and Consular Processing (Immigrant Visa)

CLIENT: LPR Father; Chinese Beneficiary Minor Sons in China

LOCATION: Petitioner: Ohio; Beneficiary: China

I-130 FILED: July 19, 2013

I-130 APPROVED: November 14, 2013

IV APPROVED: May 27, 2015

 

Our client retained us to bring his minor sons over from China. He was born and raised in China, but lives in the United States as an LPR (Green Card holder).

 

On July 19, 2013, our firm filed the I-130 Petitions to the CIS. There were no Requests for Evidence throughout the pendency of the petition. On November 14, 2013, the I-130 Petitions were approved. However, we could not start the immigrant visa processing because their visa numbers were not available. In April 2014, once their visa numbers were available, we then started the immigrant visa processing phase of trying to get his sons over to the United States.

 

On April 17, 2014, we filed the immigrant visa packet to the National Visa Center who in turn forwarded our clients’ materials to the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China. An interview notice was set for our client’s sons at the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, and we prepared them for their interview. On May 27, 2015, the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China approved and issued their immigrant visas.

 

With the approved immigrant visas, our clients’ sons can come to the United States immediately, and they will get their green cards within two weeks of entry.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Immigrant Visa on I-130 for Son Approved for Chinese Clients in Cleveland, Ohio and China

CASE: I-130 and Consular Processing (Immigrant Visa)

CLIENT: US Citizen Petitioner Mother; Chinese Beneficiary Minor Son in China

LOCATION: Petitioner: Ohio; Beneficiary: China

I-130 FILED: June 11, 2014

I-130 APPROVED: July 21, 2014

IV APPROVED: June 1, 2015

 

Our client retained us to bring her minor son over from China. She was born and raised in China, but was naturalized in the United States.

 

On June 11, 2014, our firm filed an I-130 Petition to the CIS. There were no Requests for Evidence throughout the pendency of the petition. On June 21, 2014, the I-130 Petition was approved. We then started the immigrant visa processing phase of trying to get her son over to the United States.

 

On March 12, 2015, we filed the immigrant visa packet to the National Visa Center who in turn forwarded our client’s materials to the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China. An interview notice was set for our client’s son at the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, and we prepared him for his interview. On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China approved and issued their immigrant visa.

 

With the approved immigrant visa, our client’s son can come to the United States immediately, and he will get their green cards within two weeks of entry.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Pianist I-140 EB-11 (Alien of Extraordinary Ability) Approved for Chinese Client in Cleveland, Ohio

CASE: I-140 / EB-11 (Alien of extraordinary ability)

CLIENT: Chinese

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

Our client contacted us in May 2014 about the possibility of getting an immigrant visa through the EB-11 category. He is an internationally known Pianist and is currently working as a pianist in the Cleveland area.  Our client has received multiple international awards and has appeared in numerous recitals in several cities in the world.  Also, has performed at the Carnegie Hall in New York City,  and has been published in publications such as the Plain Dealer. Upon review of his credentials and qualifications, our office determined that he was qualified for the EB-11 category, an alien of extraordinary ability.

According to the INA Section 203(b) states, in pertinent part, that:

(1)   Priority workers – visas shall first be made available… to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following sub-paragraphs (A) through (C):

(A) Aliens with extraordinary – an alien is described in this sub-paragraph if-

(i)                 The alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletes which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation,

(ii)               The alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and

(iii)             The alien’s entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States.

USCIS has consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability.  See H.R. 723 101st Cong.2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991).  The term “extraordinary ability” refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id. And 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2).

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field.  Such acclaim and achievements must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of evidence:

(i)                 Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;

(ii)               Documentation of the alien’s membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields;

(iii)             Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien’s work in the field for which classification is sought.  Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation;

(iv)             Evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought;

(v)               Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field;

(vi)             Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media;

(vii)           Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at an artistic exhibitions or showcases;

(viii)         Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation;

(ix)             Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or

(x)               Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales.

After the review of our client’s credentials and qualifications, we determined that our client can meet 4 of the 10 categories, which is more than 3 required as an alien of extraordinary ability. Our client has been awarded numerous national and international awards for his piano performance; has made an original contribution in the musical field of piano performance; has participated in a judging panel in numerous prestigious national and international piano competition events; and his distinguished achievements and success in piano performance were published in professional and major media.

Our office prepared a 19-page brief for our client’s EB-11 filing. Our client also obtained 8 letters of recommendation from internationally well-known piano professors and players. Our office also included his performance coverage, awards, media coverage, medals, recital records, and other materials to show that he is an alien of extraordinary ability in piano performance. His EB-11 I-140 application contained 55 exhibits.

Our office filed his I-140 (EB-11) petition to the USCIS Nebraska Service Center via regular processing on October 31, 2014.

However, on April 13, 2015, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE). In the RFE, the USCIS claimed that our client only met 2 of the 10 requisite statutory categories of EB-11. In the response brief, our office demonstrated that our client indeed met more categories and provided more letters of recommendations, media coverage documents, recent performance records, and leadership positions.  Our office filed the response to RFE on June 19, 2015.  Eventually, on July 7, 2015, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved his I-140 self-petition.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Green Card  for Parents Based on I-130 by US Citizen Son Approved for Romanian Clients in Cleveland Ohio

CASE: I-130 (Petitions for Parents) and I-485 Adjustment of Status

CLIENT: Romanian

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

Our client retained us to petition his parents for their green cards. Our client was born and raised in Romania, but was naturalized in the United States in 2014. He contacted our office in late August of 2014 and discussed with us the green card process. After consultation, he retained our office on August 22, 2014.

 

Once retained, our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Applications on September 23, 2014 for his parents.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Eventually, on July 1, 2015, our client’s parents’ adjustment of status applications was approved. Now, they are green card holders.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for I-751 Removal of Conditions Approval for Korean Client in Cleveland Ohio

CASE: I-751

 

APPLICANT: Korean

 

LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio

 

Our client contacted our office in early January this year regarding her I-751 application.

 

She is from South Korea and she married a U.S. citizen in November 2012. Through her marriage, she obtained a 2-year conditional green card in March of 2013.  Her conditional residency terminated in March 2015.

 

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and her husband had to file an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions. She retained our office again on January 14, 2015 and our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with supporting documents.

 

On February 5, 2015, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with multiple affidavits from her friends and family members, joint bank statements, joint taxes, utility bills, insurance policies, and photos of our client and her husband to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

 

Once the application was filed, a fingerprint notice was issued two weeks later. There was no RFE issuance or interview request for our client’s I-751 application. As a result, on June 30, 2015, the USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application and our client received her 10-year green card which removed the conditions.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Marriage to US Citizen Green Card Approval for Burkina Faso Client in Cleveland Ohio

CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status

 

CLIENT: Burkina Faso

 

LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

 

Our client came to the United States from Burkina Faso on an F-1 student’s visa in August 2012. He married a U.S. Citizen in September 2014 and retained our office on January 22, 2015 for his green card application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on March 19, 2015.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients as well. On June 26, 2015, our client was interviewed at Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu from our office accompanied our clients as well. Eventually, on the same day, his green card application was approved.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for 601A Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver Approval (Hardship) for Guatemalan Client in Cleveland, Ohio

CASE:   I-601A Provisional Unlawful Presence 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 have 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 needs 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 proceedings were administratively closed in December 2013 to file a 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. Now, he can file packet 3 and 4 here in the United States, and would go to Guatemala shortly to get his immigrant visa.

{ 0 comments }