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 Despite Late Filing I-751 Removal of Conditions Approval for Filipina Client in Tennessee

CASE: I-751

APPLICANT: Filipina

LOCATION: Tennessee

Our client contacted our office in May of 2014 regarding her I-751 application.

She is from the Philippines and she married a U.S. citizen in July 2007. Through her marriage, she obtained a 2-year conditional green card in March of 2008.  Her conditional residency terminated in March 2010.

To comply with immigration requirements, our client and her husband should have filed an I-751 Joint Petition to Remove Conditions before March 2010. However, due to financial and health related reasons for our clients, they could not file the I-751 application on time.

However, the USCIS still allows the I-751 applicant to file his or her I-751 application as long as there is a good cause for the late filing. She was placed in removal proceedings because she did not remove conditions on her residency.

In May 2014, the Memphis Immigration Court terminated her removal proceedings. She then retained our office for the I-751 filing. Once retained, our office prepared an I-751 application for our client with bona fide marriage evidence and a letter to explain their late filing.

On May 11, 2015, our office filed an I-751 application to the USCIS with affidavits of applicant and her husband to explain their late filing and other joint documents to demonstrate the bona fideness of their marriage.

On December 10, 2015, the USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) and asked our clients to submit more evidence regarding the bona fide nature of their marriage. We filed an extensive Response to RFE to the USCIS with more bona fide marital documents on March 2, 2016. The USCIS scheduled an I-751 interview for our client. Prior to the interview, our office thoroughly prepared our clients via conference calls and informed them of potential issues at the interview.

On July 19, 2016, our client was interviewed for her I-751 application at the USCIS Memphis, TN Field Office.  The USCIS approved our client’s I-751 application after the interview. She now has her 10-year green card.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Withholding of Removal Approved for Cameroonian Client at the Memphis Immigration Court

CASE: Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT in Immigration Court

CLIENT: Cameroonian

LOCATION: Memphis Immigration Court

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 Motion to Reopen with assistance of 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 consultation, we explained to 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.

Our client decided to retain our office on November 22, 2011 for a 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.

W included a detailed affidavit regarding his involvement in a political activist group in Cameroon, and 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 member had 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 stated that he knew our client’s political involvement in Cameroon. Moreover, other supporting documents such as newspaper articles and a 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 was  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, the Immigration Judge held a pre-trial conference with Attorney Yu and the DHS counsel. During the pre-trial conference, 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. His removal will be withheld and our client can get his Employment Authorization Document and will not be deported.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Doctor Hospitalist PERM Labor Certification Approval for Thai Hospitalist Beneficiary and Hospital Petitioner in Tennessee

CASE: PERM Labor Certification

 EMPLOYER: Hospital

 BENEFICIARY: Thai Hospitalist

 LOCATION: Tennessee

Our client is a hospitalist (physician) from Thailand, who is currently working at a hospital which was willing to petition him for a second-preference petition (I-140).  Our client has an M.D. degree and is a licensed physician in the state of Tennessee. He has maintained his status as an H-1B visa holder in the United States.  After talking to our client, our firm concluded that his potential employer can petition him as a Hospitalist. Based on our client’s educational, professional and working background, our office determined that he is clearly eligible for EB-2 classification for his I-140 petition.

Prior to filing PERM, our firm prepared the prevailing wage request, job order, advertisements, internal job posting, recruitment report, and all other steps which are important pre-PERM filing. Take note that the PERM application could be filed at least 60 days from the job posting date or 30 days from the last ad. Within a week from our retention, the prevailing wage request was filed.  After we obtained the foreign degree evaluation report, our office filed the job order on September 6, 2013.  On January 9, 2014, we promptly filed PERM.  Eventually, on June 23, 2014, the PERM Labor Certification was approved – an EB2 position for the Thai Hospitalist beneficiary. Now our client can file the I-140 Petition and I-485 green card application simultaneously since his priority date is current.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Green Card Approval Through Marriage, Visa Waiver Entry for German Client in Memphis, TN

Case: I-130/I-485
Applicant/Beneficiary – German
Location: Memphis, TN

Our client entered the United States in November 2010 from Germany under the visa waiver program. He came here to visit his U.S. citizen girlfriend (now his wife). As a Visa Waiver Entrant, he was only authorized to remain in the United States only for 90 days.

Later, in April 2011, our client and his U.S. citizen girlfriend married in the United States. His wife contacted our office, and they retained our office on July 8, 2011.  One main issue in his green card application through marriage was the fact that he came to the United States under the visa waiver program.   As our office wrote in our previous success story with a similar issue,  under the visa waiver program, citizens of certain countries can enter the U.S. for 90 days without a visa with the condition that the visitor waives his or her right to contest removal (other than on the basis of asylum).  The “no-contest” provision of the Visa Waiver Program is fundamental; if someone could enter under the VWP and then contest removability, it would defeat the whole purpose of the Program which is to make it easy for certain nationals to come to the United States to visit and then leave without all the red-tape involved in visa issuance.

Since our client resided in Memphis, Tennessee, his application had a better chance compared to states under the 9th Circuit (see Momeni v. Chertoff).  However, it was quite foreseeable that the USCIS field office will exercise its discretion to deny his application because of his visa waiver entry.

Nevertheless, our office filed the I-130 Petition and I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on November 8, 2012.  Our office requested the CIS to exercise favorable discretion in granting adjustment of status. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, the fingerprint appointment, and the work permit all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On February 19, 2013, our client was interviewed at the Memphis, Tennessee USCIS Field Office.  Despite the visa waiver issue, the USCIS officer approved his green card application on the same day.  Now, our client is 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

 

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=”https://plus.google.com/107743308565341841259?rel=author”>Google</a>

{ 0 comments }

CASE: Motion to Reopen
CLIENT: Cameroonian
LOCATION: Memphis, TN

Our client came to the United States from Cameroon without inspection in July 2001. Within a year of his entry, he filed an I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal in March 2002 to the USCIS.  He was interviewed in April 2002, and his application was subsequently referred to the Memphis Immigration Court in May 2002.  His removal proceedings were continued, but he could not appear at his individual hearing in April 2003 due to being hospitalized. Thus, the Court found him removable and ordered him removed in absentia.

Later, in April 2011, he filed a Motion to Reopen with the assistance of 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. We explained to him that the only way the Court can reopen his case is based on changed country conditions in Cameroon. Otherwise, our client’s second Motion to Reopen will be considered untimely filed and numerically barred. Our client decided to retain our office on November 22, 2011 for a Motion to Reopen based on changes in country conditions under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i).

We prepared the brief and helped our client with the supporting documents and on March 6, 2012, our office filed a fifteen-page Motion to Reopen with the Memphis Immigration Court, together with a total of 24 exhibits. We included a detailed affidavit regarding his involvement in a political activist group in Cameroon, and 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 have 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 stated that he knew about our client’s political involvement in Cameroon. Other supporting documents such as newspaper articles and a recent country report from 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.  Our client now does not have a final order of removal and will proceed to seek asylum relief with the Immigration 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 Motion to Reopen success stories, please click here.

For other success stories, please click here.

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

 

 

 

 

{ 0 comments }