Solving All Your Immigration Needs

Recent Success Stories

Employment-based Visa Petitions and PERM

I-140 National Interest Waiver Petition Reopened and Approved
Location: Washington

This case represents a three-and-a-half year long journey to prove to USCIS that our client was eligible for the immigration benefit sought.  Our client worked as a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analyst for a government entity, specializing in remote sciences and mapping.  As part of his research our client created new methodological tools to more accurately capture and map environmental data.  He had earned his doctorate at a graduate institution in the United States.  He approached our office for help to file a green card. Although he worked for an employer under legal nonimmigrant status, he was uncertain if his employer would sponsor him for a green card.  We reviewed his case and believed he would be eligible to file under the 2nd preference category as a position holding an advanced degree plus a national interest waiver (NIW) of the labor certification requirement.  Then, he would not need an employer to be his sponsor because he would be able to petition himself.

We started with an I-140 Petition filed on February 4, 2011.  We were issued a Request for Evidence, and the case was eventually denied in September 2011. We filed an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) which was denied in June 2012.  Not giving up because we believed in the merit of our client's case, we filed a second I-140 Petition on June 14, 2012.  Two Requests for Evidence were issued, and USCIS again denied the case in May 2013.  Believing that USCIS reached a clearly erroneous decision, we decided to contact USCIS Headquarters to discuss the merits of the case and to point out the clear error in the case.  Two weeks later, USCIS on its own motion reopened the case and approved the I-140 Petition on May 15, 2013. Our client and his wife filed for their green cards in July 2013, and the case was approved in October 2013! 

The details of the case are as follows:

Part 1:
In order to be eligible under the NIW category, he had to meet a three-prong test.  He had to demonstrate the following: 1) he was an alien who was seeking employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit; 2) the proposed benefit would be national in scope; 3) finally, he would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications.

We instructed our client on all the proper documentation to provide including letters of support from various professors/scholars/experts in the field who could attest to the national significance of our client's work.  We also put together a cover letter explaining how our client met these three requirements in February 2011.  USCIS issued a Request for Evidence asking for us to demonstrate that he met the 2nd and 3rd prongs of the above-mentioned test.  We provided additional evidence in the form of letters of support from scientists in the field working for NASA and a national research laboratory who could attest to the national significance of our client's research.  We also provided a research portfolio to visually display the achievements of our client.

The I-140 petition was denied in September 2011 because USCIS concluded that our client's work was not national in scope.  It argued that letters of support alone do not show that a self-petitioner's proposed benefit is national in scope without being supported by any corroborative evidence.  USCIS concluded that we did not submit evidence that other regions of the country outside of a few states had actually adopted our client's methodology.  We filed an appeal of the case which was denied by the Administrative Appeals Office in July 2012.

Part 2:
We went back to the drawing board and filed a second I-140 Petition.  Since filing the first I-140 petition, our client had collaborated with a federal agency who was a world leader in coastal research.  We filed the 2nd I-140 Petition in June 2012.  We received  a Request for Evidence. USCIS stated that we had met the 1st and 2nd prongs of the three-prong test and needed more evidence that our client had a past record of specific prior achievement that justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest.  USCIS also asked for additional published articles by other researchers citing our client's research.  We responded to the Request for Evidence and then a 2nd Request for Evidence was issued by USCIS.  Suprisingly, USCIS indicated that our client now met the 1st and 3rd prongs (instead of the 1st and 2nd as stated earlier) and now wanted more evidence that our client's work was national in scope.  We again provided documentation showing that our client's data was being used by a federal agency for the purposes of standardizing a national database.  We also obtained a letter from a state Sentor who attested to the importance of our client's contributions to environmental research.

USCIS denied the case for a 2nd time on May 1, 2013. It concluded that our client had met the 1st and 2nd prongs but was unable to meet the 3rd prong of the test.  We were truly perplexed by this decision because in the 2nd RFE USCIS explicitly stated that we had met the 3rd prong.  We immediately contacted USCIS headquarters and outlined our argument. We described the inconsistent and arbitrary nature of the findings, pointing to the discrepancy where USCIS had explicitly stated we had met the 3rd prong in the 2nd RFE but was now saying that we did not meet the prong.  We also argued that in a previous filing of the petition, USCIS had concluded that we had actually met the third prong, but now it was saying that we did not even though we had included even stronger evidence in this 2nd filing.

USCIS reviewed our case and decided to reopen the petition on May 14, 2013. Then, on May 15, 2013 our client's I-140 petition was APPROVED! 

I-360 Petition Reopened and Approved for Church Minister
Location: Ohio

Our client was a church minister for a nondenominational church and approached our office for helpt o file an I-360 Petition for Special Immigrant Religius Worker.  Our client had worked for the petitioning church for at least two years in legal status.  He worked after graduation from a seminary under the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program and under an H-1B visa.

We prepared all the necessary documents to demonstrate that our client met the following requirements: 1) was a member of a religious denomination that has a bona fide non-profit religious organization in the U.S. for at least two years immediately preceding filing the petition; 2) that he was coming to the U.S. to work n a full-time compensated position solely in the vocation of a minister; 3) that he was coming to work for a bona fide non-profit religious organization in the U.S. or a bona fide organization which is affiliated with the religious denomination in the U.S.; and 4) that he was working in the vocation of a minister etiher abroad or in lawful immigration status in the U.S. for at least the two-year period immediately preceding the filing of the petition. We filed the petition wtih the proper documentation in November 2012.

Our office received a Request for Evidence in December 2012.  The Service submitted a template Request for Evidence and requested additional evidence pertaining to the religious denomination, compensation, the proferred position, the religious organization, and information about our client's qualifications.  We prepared additional detailed documents and submitted our response in March 2013.

The Service denied the I-360 Petition in May 2013 concluding that our client did not have the prior two-year work experience and that our client did not have the proper qualifications for the position.  The Service reached its first decision by concluding that his OPT work experience did not count as part of the two-year work requirement.  The Service reached its second decision by summarily concluding that our client did not meet the requirements of a minister without any explanation.

Rather than filing a Motion to Reopen, we directly contacted the Service Center's Headquarters arguing that the Service's decision was clearly erroneous based on existing regulations.  We argued that the OPT authorized work did in fact meet the qualifciations for the two-year requirement and demonstrated that the Service relied on the wrong section of the regulations to reach its decision.  We also argued that our client met the qualifications for a minister and that we provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate this. We also pointed to the fact that the Service summarily concluded that our client did not qualify without any explanation. 

The Service reviewed our email and notified our office that the government was reopening the case on ITS OWN Motion to Reopen and that our case was pending.  The Service agreed that it had indeed made a mistake in denying the petition and needed time for additional review.  After the case was reopened, a USCIS officer conducted an on-site visit at at the petitioning church.  The I-360 petition was approved shortly thereafter in June 2013!

We then filed the green card applications for our client and his family dependent in June 2013.  The cases were approved in October 2013 without any Request for Evidence.

Light Heavyweight Boxing Champion EB-1(A) I-140 Petition for Alien of Extraordinary Ability Approved
Location:

A world renowned light heavyweight champion approached our firm to help him apply for a green card.  Our client has a distinguished record as both an amateur and professional boxer.  He has won countless awards including the major, internationally recognized championship title.  We helped review recommendation letters, gathered and organized a complete and extensive list of supporting documents, and drafted a petition letter demonstrating how our client has sustained national and international acclaim in his field and is an alien of extraordinary athletic ability.  We requested premium processing of the petition.  The petition was approved within 8 days!

Request to Reconsider Denial of PERM Application Granted
Location: Cleveland, OH

On May 22, 2012, our firm submitted a PERM Application for Employment Certification for the position of Economics Researcher / Data Analyst, an EB-2 position.  On July 26, 2012, the Department of Labor issued an Audit Notification and requested proof of recruitment procedures.  On August 24, 2012, the Employer responded to the Audit Notification, attaching the requested documentation. On January 11, 2013, the Department of Labor issued a final determination denying the request for certification of the PERM application. The PERM application was denied for a clerical omission of certain job duties on the PERM application.

Our office reviewed numerous cited PERM denial notices related to the same issue. We were not able to find any relevant arguments that were in our favor. We also consulted colleagues in the field who advised us to file a new PERM Application instead of trying to overcome this decision. However, deep in our hearts we believed that there must be a possibility to persuade the Department of Labor to believe us that the omission on the ETA Form 9089 was inadvertent human error.

On February 7, 2013, we mailed a Request for Reconsideration of the Denial of the Application arguing that the error committed was harmless and did not contain terms and conditions of employment that are less favorable than those offered to the alien.  The Request for Reconsideration was approved in four business days, on February 13, 2013.

Super Flyweight Boxing Champion EB-1(A) I-140 Petition for Alien of Extraordinary Ability Approved
Location: Michigan

A world renowned super flyweight champion approached our firm to help him apply for a green card.  Our client has a distinguished record as both an amateur and professional boxer. In order to demonstrate extraordinary ability, we have to provide evidence that our client has sustained national and international acclaim and that his achievements have been internationally recognized in the field of boxing.  We can prove extraordinary ability by providing evidence of a one-time achievement like a major, internationally recognized award or, in the alternative, we can show that our client has met at least 3 out of 10 criteria required by the Service to show that he has extraordinary ability.  

We provided evidence that our client won two major, internationally recognized championship titles.  In the alternative, we also showed that our client met 3 out of 10 criteria: 1) receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence, 2) publicity in major media sources, and 3) original athletic contributions to the sport.  We provided proof of awards and titles, newspaper and online articles, and expert opinion letters from world-renown boxing trainers and internationally recognized professional boxing champions in support of our client's petition.

The Service issued a Request for Evidence ten days later indicating that it did not believe that our client's championship titles were the most prestigious or respected titles in that weight division.  Rather, the Service argued that our client's titles were given out by lesser-recognized boxing sanctioning bodies.  The Service also concluded that we met only 1 out of 3 of the criteria presented: receipt of lesser nationaly or internationally recognized prizes or awards.  The Service required extra documentation to show that he was indeed an alien of extraordinary ability. 

In our response, we provided additional evidence demonstrating that his championship titles were from two major sanctioning bodies in the world of professional boxing.  In support of this argument, we provided an advisory opinion from one of the executive board members of a world-reknown sanctioning body.  In the alternative, we also provided additional evidence that our client met 3 criteria out of 10 as required by the Service.  The Service already agreed with us that we met one criterion, so we only needed to demonstrate that our client met two more.  We provided additional evidence to support our argument that our client indeed meet two other requirements of publicity in major media sources and original athletic contributions to the sport.  We also provided new evidence of an additional criterion met by our client: membership in associations in the field which require outstanding achievements of its members.  We provided a letter from his home country boxing federation to attest that our client had been a member of their national boxing team.

The Service reviewed our additional information and denied the I-140 Petition in November 2011.  The Service concluded that our client's championship titles were not the most prestigious or respected titles and were issued by lesser-known sanctioning bodies.  The Service also concluded that we had met only 2 out of 3 criteria required to show extraordinary ability: receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes and membership in an association that requires outstanding achievements by its members.  We fell short of the extraordinary ability classification by only one criterion.

We refused to give up on the case believing that the Service had reached an improper decision.  We filed a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider the decision within the 33-day deadline.  We argued that although the Service believed that our client had won lesser-recognized championship titles, the Service ignored the fact that by winning this title our client was placed in the top 10 rankings for professional boxers in the world in his weight division.  This evidence demonstrated that our client's titles were considered of significant importance in the world of boxing in order to catapult his place in the worldwide rankings to the top ten.  We also demonstrated that our client met a 3rd criterion of original athletic contributions of major significance in the field.  In addition to our expert letters, we provided a letter from the boxing federation in his home country to explain the impact that our client's championship victories had on the sport in his home country and how it also brought attention to professional boxing in his home country on an international scale.  We also highlighted these achievements in articles that we previously provided. 

We suprisingly received a denial of our Motion to Reopen/Reconsider in January 2012 because it was considered untimely filed.  Clearly, the Service made a mistake by denying our motion based on untimeliness, and we emailed the Service Center Operation Program Directorate to correct the mistake. We provided evidence that our motion was timely filed, and in February 2012 the Service on its own motion reopened the case, acknowledging its mistake.

Our Motion to Reopen/Reconsider was placed back into the queue for review.  We followed up with the case over time and was told that our case was pending.  In September 2012, we were suprisingly informed by a customer service representative that our case was considered denied as of January 2012.  There was no record that the case had been reopened by the Service in January 2012.  We placed a new service request in order to investigate the matter and continued to contact the Service about our case.  On October 19, 2012 we were informed that the Service had reopened the Motion to Reopen/Reconsider.  The original I-140 petition and the evidence submitted with the motion would be reviewed.  Then, on October 26, 2012, the Service approved the I-140 PetitionAfter fighting for more than one year, we finally received our victory in the ring.

I-140 EB-2 Petition Approved for Senior Products Engineer with 5 Years Work Experience
Location: Ohio

Our client is a Senior Product Engineer who is working for an international automobile parts supplier.  Our client has a bachelor's degree in the related field and has more than five years of progressive work experience in his specialty.  Therefore, he was eligible to file an I-140 Petition in the employment-based second preference category for members of the professions holding advanced degree or the equivalent.  The benefits of filing an I-140 Petition within this employment category is that there is a shorter waiting period for an immediately available visa.

Our client already had an approved PERM labor certification with a priority date of September 22, 2011, and we filed the I-140 petition with all the relevant documents.  We provided documents showing that our client's employer had the ability to pay the prevailing wage for our client.  We also provided documents establishing that our client had met both the educational and work experience for this position. 

We filed the I-140 Petition on April 19, 2012, and it was approved on June 11, 2012 in less than two months!

Reopened I-140 Petition that was Denied Because Mistakenly Considered Untimely Filed
Location: Michigan

Our office filed a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider the denial of an I-140 Petition based on classification as an alien of extraordinary ability pursuant to INA Section 203(b)(1)(A).  The I-140 Petition was denied on November 18, 2011.  We filed a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider on December 21, 2011.  The Motion was timely filed within the prescribed 33-day period pursuant to 8 CFR 103.5 a(b) because the applicant received the denial notice by mail.  On January 17, 2012, USCIS denied our Motion to Reopen/Reconsider for being untimely filed.

Our office reviewed this denial, and we had reason to believe that the Service mixed up our case with the facts of another case because the facts cited by the Service in its denial were inaccurate.  On January 20, 2012, we contacted the Nebraska Service Center via electronic mail and requested the immediate review of the denial of the Motion to Reopen/Reconsider and reopening the I-140 Petition.  We pointed out the many errors in the Service's account of the facts of the case in its decision.  

On February 14, 2012, we received a phone call from the Service Center Operations Program Directorate from Washington, DC office notifying us that they will consider the I-140 Petition timely filed and therefore, the Nebraska Service Center will reopen the I-140 Petition on its own motion.

Request to Reconsider Denial of PERM Application Granted
Location: Hilton Head Island, South Carolina

Our client from the Philippines filed a PERM Application for Employment Certification for the position of household manager, an EB-3 position.  The Department of Labor audited the case and requested proof of advertising and recruitment procedures.  The Employer repsonded to the Audit notification, and the PERM application was denied for failure to provide adequate and complete documentation and for a clerical omission on the PERM application.

Our client approached our office for help, and we prepared a Request for Reconsideration of the Denial of the Application, arguing that the documentation provided was sufficient pursuant to the Regulations and that the error committed was harmless error and did not constitute a material mistake.  The Request for Reconsideration was approved after one month!

Heavyweight Boxing Champion EB-1(A) I-140 Petition for Alien of Extraordinary Ability Approved
Location: Germany

 A world renowned heavyweight champion approached our firm to help him apply for a green card.  Our client has a distinguished record as both an amateur and professional boxer.  He has won countless awards including the internationally recognized Heavyweight World Chmpion title.  We helped review recommendation letters, gathered and organized a complete and extensive list of supporting documents, and drafted a petition letter demonstrating how our client has sustained national and international acclaim in his field and is an alien of extraordinary athletic ability.  We requested premium processing of the petition.  The petition was approved within 2 days!


twitter-bg
Deborah Lee, Esq.
1350 W. 5th Ave., Ste. 314
Columbus, OH 43212

Phone: 614-725-5804
Fax: 614-725-5805


twitter-bg
Mon. - Fri.: 9 a.m. - 6 p.m.
Evening by Appointments Only
View Map