Success Stories From 2012

These are some sample cases from our files. It is impossible for us to highlight all we have done in the past thirty years of our practice. These are just some of the cases that come to mind.

Category: RFE, NOID, Form I-140

The following two cases demonstrate how USCIS, an "expert" agency, can misread immigration forms, causing unnecessary anxiety and expense for people.

We submitted two I-140’s for EB-2 cases in which the requirements from the PERM Petition were a Master’s Degree and three years’ experience, or a Bachelor’s Degree and five years’ experience. One case received a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) and the other a Request for Evidence (RFE). In both cases, USCIS misinterpreted the requirements as a MS+3 or, in lieu of Master’s, BS+5, meaning three years’ experience plus the Bachelor’s Degree and five years’ experience. Therefore, the officer required proof of each applicant having a Bachelor’s and eight years’ experience.

In the Intent to Deny case, the applicant had a Bachelor’s and more than five years’ experience, but did not have eight years. We responded, stating that the requirements were being read incorrectly from the PERM petition and that the requirements clearly did not require a BS+8, but a BS plus only five years. The USCIS denied this case, claiming that the applicant did not have the required eight years, and denied the accompanying I-485 petitions for the main applicant and his family. We immediately filed a new I-140 case, and this second filing was ultimately approved without any RFE or Intent to Deny. Upon extensive subsequent follow-up, we were also able to have the denied I-485’s reopened and linked to the approved I-140, saving the applicant thousands of dollars in filing fees. As the priority date for this case was current, the I-485’s were processed, and the applicant received his Green Card in a short period.

After the first case was denied, we received the RFE in the second case. The applicant had a Bachelor’s and approximately six years’ experience. Knowing about the denial in the first case, we responded with a detailed argument and an in-depth analysis of the PERM form and answers, the instructions, and the drafts of future PERM petitions that had been released by the Department of Labor (DOL) in attempt to show that the actual requirement was a MS+3 or BS+5, not MS+3 or BS+8 as the USCIS claimed. This I-140 was approved.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.

-----------------------
Category: NOIR, Form I-140

The following case is an example of USCIS blanket revocations based upon criminal convictions. Fortunately, USCIS did keep an open mind and permitted us to show the law and the facts in their proper light without having to go to the Court over this. 

A petitioner with several employees filed an I-140 application for a beneficiary using substituted labor. USCIS approved the I-140. The beneficiary filed an I-485 application and ported to other employers. Meanwhile, USCIS received a letter of withdrawal of the I-140 petition from petitioner’s representative whom USCIS found had never worked for petitioner. Later, the employer/petitioner pled guilty to mail fraud and admitted to each element of the crime. USCIS found all petitions filed by that petitioner fraudulent. USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) the beneficiary’s I-140 FIVE years after the I-140 approval and after the beneficiary had ported twice to new employers. We took over the case and filed a response. We pointed out all the legal infirmities with sweeping generalization that overturns all approved cases based upon a conviction. We also pointed out item by item how every allegation in the NOIR was, in fact, without basis in law or fact. USCIS reaffirmed approval of the I-140. Later, the beneficiary’s I- 485 was also approved.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.

-----------------------

We filed a PERM application under EB-2 for a Senior Programmer Analyst’s position early this year. Three months later, U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued an Audit Notification. Immediately following our response, DOL denied the application, citing that our audit response did not include a copy of the job order. Our response, in the form of an MTR (Motion to Reconsider)/Appeal, included a clear exposition of the law and a BALCA decision in which the Administrative Law Judge held that the job order is not a mandatory document required to be submitted, and therefore, the denial was erroneous. Given that the denial reason was clearly an error on DOL’s part, we requested the case be placed into the government error queue so that the case would quickly be reopened and approved. Within one week, DOL certified the labor application.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.

-----------------------

The applicant completed a three-year Diploma in Computer Engineering from an accredited institution in India (Government Polytechnic Mumbai). The applicant was then directly admitted to the second year Bachelor of Engineering (B.E) program at an advanced level and completed the four-year degree B.E. program.

We provided several items of evidence that indicated that the applicant had attained the foreign equivalent of a four-year Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Engineering from an accredited U.S. college or university.

The I-140 was approved.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.

-----------------------
Type of case: H-1B Extension

We were retained to file H-1B extension for the job title of Manager, HR and Training Operations [SOC (ONET/OES) Occupation Title of 11-3131 Training and Development Manager]. USCIS questioned that the job does not qualify as specialty occupation because the position falls within the category of HR Managers, and, as such, no specific degree or education is required to train for the position of HR Manager.

This was a very difficult case because we had the task of differentiating the proffered position of Manager, HR and Training Operations from that of HR Manager, even though Beneficiary was performing some of the HR Manager functions and his job title appeared to be similar to HR Manager.

We argued in the RFE using decided cases that USCIS should take into account the nature, scope, and size of the Petitioner’s business enterprise along with Petitioner's hierarchy/staffing levels to determine the importance of Beneficiary’s position. We provided data from various universities and arguments how the data correlates with the offered job.

USCIS accepted our arguments and approved the case.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.

-----------------------