Sample Cases from our office

We assisted petitioner, a public accounting firm, in filing an H-1B petition for beneficiary for the position of staff accountant. We received an RFE requesting additional evidence that the position qualified as a specialty occupation by satisfying at least one of the four qualifying criteria for a specialty occupation.  In our lengthy response, we argued that the job duties, as detailed in the petition, and as compared with OOH’s job description for staff accountant not only comports with but goes beyond OOH guidance in its uniqueness and complexity.  We were able to show that although the employee's qualifying degree was not specifically in accounting, it was in an equivalent field with a shared body of specialized knowledge. The petition was approved shortly after filing the response.

Status: We were able to show that although the employee's qualifying degree was not specifically in accounting, it was in an equivalent field with a shared body of specialized knowledge. The petition was approved shortly after filing the response.

We successfully responded to an H-1B request for evidence (RFE), questioning the beneficiary’s maintenance of status. The beneficiary’s previous employer (Employer A) had submitted an H-1B extension. While the petition was pending the beneficiary’s nonimmigrant status expired. An RFE was subsequently received by Employer A, and following the filing of a comprehensive RFE response, the petition was denied. Upon receipt of the denial the beneficiary immediately stopped working for Employer A and shortly thereafter applied for and accepted a job with Employer B, who then filed a petition requesting a change of employer and an H-1B extension. In the interim between the denial of the petition filed by Employer A and the filing of the petition by Employer B, the beneficiary was unable to leave the U.S. due to the COVID -19 pandemic and applicable international travel restrictions. We submitted a comprehensive RFE response clearly establishing that a gap in maintenance of status occurred because of extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the beneficiary and argued that the matter warranted discretionary approval. The petition filed by Employer B was then approved.

Status: We submitted a comprehensive RFE response clearly establishing that a gap in maintenance of status occurred because of extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the beneficiary and argued that the matter warranted discretionary approval. The petition filed by Employer B was then approved.

We filed an H-1B petition for a company that provides IT related services, on behalf of the beneficiary, a  software developer. An RFE was subsequently issued, responded to and then denied as failing to prove that petitioner established that sufficient speciality occupation work was available and that the position qualified as a specialty occupation. We filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Office, the appeal was sustained and the petition was remanded back for issuance of an approval notice. During the following months multiple attempts were made by counsel and petitioner to determine and expedite the processing of the approval notice. After approximately six months of delay in issuance of the notice, we filed a complaint with a United States District Court. We were able to successfully argue that this was an unreasonable delay. The case was settled and approximately ten days after filing the case the approval notice was issued.

Status: We were able to successfully argue that this was an unreasonable delay. The case was settled and approximately ten days after filing the case the approval notice was issued.

We responded to a Form I-485 Request for Evidence to prove that approximately a decade ago the permanent residency applicant had, in fact, attended two U.S. universities as he had claimed in previously approved petitions. Both universities had been certified by ICE under its Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) during the applicant’s attendance. Subsequent to his having transferred from one university to the other, from which the applicant then obtained a graduate degree, and after he no longer had any association with either universities, ICE withdrew its SEVP certification from both universities. The documents requested by USCIS dated back to over a decade. Fortunately the applicant had retained many documents that indicated he had in fact attended both universities and relied upon the universities and their Designated School Officials who administer the SEVP and provide information and guidance to the students. We also pointed out to the government that even if USCIS found that the applicant had violated his visa status he remained eligible for an exemption under the regulations  and that  discretionary approval was warranted in this case. While we were unable to provide all documents required given the time that had lapsed, a few weeks after filing, the applicant’s Green Card was approved.

Status: While we were unable to provide all documents required given the time that had lapsed, a few weeks after filing, the applicant’s Green Card was approved.

We filed an L-1A for a managerial level employee seeking a second two year extension of the beneficiary’s classification as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee (L-1A) to enable the beneficiary to continue in his position as Director-Product Engineering, a position he had held since the approval of the initial petition. Subsequent to filing the petition we received a Request for Evidence (RFE). We responded and the petition was then approved. The RFE requested additional information regarding the beneficiary’s qualifications, the managerial position abroad (to prove he had at least one continuous year, within the three years prior to his application for admission to the U.S., of full time employment with a qualifying foreign organization (which was the case, as the U.S, company was a 100% subsidiary of the foreign company)), and the proposed managerial position in the U.S. In the response to the RFE we provided extensive narratives and corroborating documents explaining further and beyond what was submitted with the initial L-1A filing. In addition to a response letter we provided extensive corroborating evidence as exhibits that included letters from authorized representatives of both companies that very comprehensively addressed the concerns and which themselves included exhibits. The hurdle here was proving that a second extension was warranted from a legal and factual standpoint.  Our legal argument combined with the significant volume of corroborating evidence proved successful.