NOID Sample Cases from our office

These are some sample cases from our files. It is impossible for us to present all have done past over 15 years of our practice. But these were some cases that came to mind when we started writing this column 2-3 years ago.

In this case, the petitioning green card holder filed forms I-130 and I-485 for her second husband, whom she had been married to for less than five years since obtaining her lawful permanent resident status based on her first marriage, which was to a U.S. citizen. That marriage ended in a divorce. In such instances there is a rebuttable presumption that the prior marriage was fraudulent.  There is an exception if five years have passed from the petitioner's adjustment or if the petitioner can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the first marriage was entered into as a bona fide marriage. A notice of intent to deny (NOID) was issued following the couple’s interview with a Service Officer.  Since five years had not passed, we assisted Petitioner in responding to the NOID and proving by clear and convincing evidence that her prior marriage was not fraudulent. The detailed response included many documents regarding the bona fide nature of the first marriage, such as photographs, extensive wedding and pre and post wedding details along with many affidavits. We requested USCIS to withdraw its intention to deny and resume processing. Shortly after filing the NOID response, Beneficiary received his green card.

Status: We requested USCIS to withdraw its intention to deny and resume processing. Shortly after filing the NOID response, Beneficiary received his green card.

 

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: Form I-140, NOID, RFE

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.

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