Sample Cases from our office

Our client received an approved I-140 for EB-2, but, with the priority dates at a standstill, opted to file under EB-1 as well.  She had three Ph.D.’s in Marketing and Management.  We provided documentary evidence to show her unique specialty in the social sciences.  This applicant had some significant publications but not as many of some other scientists.  However, we were able to prove that, with social scientists, the data collection process takes substantially more time and, therefore, the volume of publications would not be the same as a hard scientist.  We were able to show that several of the publications were quite noteworthy and published in prestigious journals with a high impact factor.  We also provided evidence to show the applicant’s qualifications as a judge of her peers.  Given her international reputation and highly regarded research work, the applicant was asked to review manuscripts for a significant number of noteworthy publications and a multitude of international conferences.  In addition, we provided evidence of the applicant’s membership on an editorial board, a position of significant importance.  We also provided documentation to show the numerous occasions that the applicant was asked to be on expert panels based on her highly respected and extensive expertise.  Finally, we were able to show the impact of her original contributions and the ongoing research that continues to be cited by other world-renowned researchers in her field.  This case was filed premium processing and approved within just two days.

We have recently received an EB2 approval for a Physical Therapist.  EB2 classification has become especially important now that EB3 category cases for severely backlogged countries are delayed so much.  The good news with PT’s is that they do not have to go through the PERM process.  But the bad news is that USCIS seems to question whether or not truly a Master’s degree or BS+5 years level job is being offered.  The I-140 approval took 1.5 months in regular processing.

It is HIGHLY unusual for a PERM case to have such a convoluted history, but here is one where success came after two denials.

We filed a PERM application under EB-2 for a Physicist’s position for which no formal training was required. The job also did not require employment experience, but did require hands-on work in a university research laboratory with a particular equipment.  DOL denied the application stating essentially that the job requires training.  According to them, “hands on work” is the same as formal training.

We responded with an MTR/Appeal asserting that this was not an appropriate ground for denial and that no formal training was required or available in these technologies. We submitted that hands-on work in a university research laboratory does not constitute formal training. Upon consideration, DOL agreed with us and reopened the application.

A year and a half later, DOL issued an Audit Notification. Immediately following our response, DOL denied the application for the second time, stating (incorrectly) that the advertisements were defective due to some technical reasons. Our response, in the form of another MTR/Appeal, included a clear exposition of the law. Given that the denial reason was clearly an error on DOL’s part, we requested the case be placed into an expedited review so the case would quickly be reopened and approved. To our relief and joy, within one week DOL certified the labor application.

Our client recently received his green card after a long journey with USCIS. He approached us following a denial of his I-140 (NIW, physician in medically underserved area). The applicant had filed the I-140 and I-485 and then moved to a different state while the applications were pending. There had been no action on the file for 2 years. He submitted a service request with USCIS requesting a status update. USCIS issued a Request for Evidence shortly after the applicant’s move, which was sent to the original address and ultimately returned undelivered. USCIS issued the denial based on the applicant’s employment in a new medically underserved area not identified in the initial petition. Applicant had submitted Form AR11 with USCIS noting his move to another state.

We submitted an MTR/Appeal explaining the law and noting that the applicant had moved following his completion of his J-1 waiver 3-year requirement and had a valid Employment Authorization Document to work for the new employer.  We also submitted an Amended I-140 Petition, which reflected employment with the new employer. We provided verification of his completion of 3 years of medical service (J1 period) and documentation to show current full-time employmet  We provided verification of his completion of 3 years of medical service (J1 period) plus documentation to show current full-time employment with several rural clinics as well as a private practice. The MTR was granted and the Amended I-140 was approved following a Request for Evidence.  USCIS asked for further verification of the health professional shortage area of the various clinics as they were located in several different counties. Due to the unique employment arrangement of the applicant as a contractor for the clinics, USCIS required additional employment verification. Ultimately the I-140 was approved. Following that, his green card (I-485) was also approved.

We were retained by a client who was in USA on B-2 status and wished to apply for green card through EB-5 investor/entrepreneur category. We obtained a B-2 extension and simultaneously filed the EB-5 petition. Client was in the process of investing $1 Million in an existing business. $500,000.00 of the investment was in the form of cash (some portion of which was gift money) and for the remaining $500,000.00, a promissory note was executed and secured by foreign personal assets of client.

Since the business in which the client proposed to invest was already experiencing financial difficulties, we were successfully able to prove that it qualified as a troubled business, i.e., a business that had been in existence for at least two years, and had during the twelve or twenty-four month period prior to the priority date incurred a net loss of at least twenty per cent of the business's net worth prior to such loss.

USCIS initially issued an RFE, mainly raising issues about source of funds. We provided comprehensive tabular explanation along with the appropriate documents to trace the source of funds. One of the challenges was proving source of funds for the money coming from a Joint Family Account. We were able to successfully show that money pooled into “Hindu Undivided Family Fund” properly known as HUF Account, becomes a joint family property, and passes through testamentary succession, therefore as such, our client is the lawful owner of those funds, which her husband left in HUF Account after his death. We provided further evidence that client’s husband had income from lawful business activity, therefore it qualified as ‘lawful investment’ under EB-5 regulations.

USCIS accepted all our arguments and approved EB-5 petition.