Sample Cases from our office

EB1 – Outstanding Researcher – Seed Technology/Plant Science
This week, we filed an I-140 petition premium processing and received an approval within 24 hours. The applicant had over thirteen years’ research experience, some of which was while working for a world-renowned company known for its innovative work in seed technology.  We were able to provide substantial documentary evidence of the applicant’s original contributions that began as early has his Ph.D. years. The applicant had published some very significant articles that changed the course of research for many of his peers. Thus, his publications were cited heavily in top scientific journals with high impact factors. We were also able to supply copies of articles featuring the applicant and his work. The applicant had also been invited to participate on a national advisory board for a prominent society due to his reputation in the scientific community. Reference letters from leading experts clearly defined this applicant as one of the very top scientists in this unique specialty.  The 24-hour turn around was a very pleasant surprise indeed.

We have recently won a case for a physician working in several rural clinics as well as his private practice within a medically underserved area. We were retained following a denial of the I-140 petition for NIW. We filed an appeal as well as an amended (new) I-140 application to show that the physician had met the 5-year service requirements for an NIW. The applicant had moved from one medically underserved area to another while the original I-140 was pending. The issue was whether an “amendment” could have been filed in this case to notify USCIS of the move without an approved I-140. USCIS issued a request for evidence, but acknowledged the applicant’s prior medical service and credited him the time towards his 5-year requirement. Upon receipt of the request for evidence we responded with additional documentation to show the relationship between the physician (medical service provider) and the rural clinics (contractor). We supplied attestation letters from each of the contractors as well as an affidavit from the applicant indicating a commitment to complete his 5-years of medical service in the underserved area. In order to show “full-time” employment, we provided documentation that described the combined service at each rural clinic as well as time spent with patients at his private practice, which more than met the 40-hour requirement. We also offered a letter from the previous employer to document prior medical service.

We were retained to assist a single US Citizen woman to adopt a child from India.  Due to India’s rigid regulations pertaining to who is eligible to become an adoptive parent of an Indian orphan, our client was initially worried this dream would never come to fruition. She had received very discouraging advice from several sources.  Nevertheless, within about one year’s time after we started working, the process is completed. Both immigration related petitions (I-800/I-800a) were approved within a few weeks after submission. There were several intervening issues throughout the process, however, working with our client’s State Department approved Adoption Agency, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State we were able to resolve all such matters. With all intercountry formalities completed as required by the Hague Convention, our client and her daughter are now happily together in the United States.

We have just received another H-1 approval for an end-client placement.  There were two intervening vendors and the end-client declined to provide a letter stating that there is no requirement in law for them to provide any such letter.  We had to get together convincing secondary evidence.  I was highly doubtful we will get the approval, but we did.  So, despite the January 8 memo from USCIS, there is life yet for consulting industry.

We were recently retained at the I-140 Appeal stage for an I-140 denied on grounds of fraud/willful misrepresentation.  USCIS denied the I-140 citing inconsistencies between the ETA 9089 job requirements, the advertisements, and a subsequent letter sent by petitioner with an RFE pertaining to the job requirements.  Due to what USCIS termed as "material inconsistencies,"  the I-140 was denied on the grounds that the labor certification submitted was gained through fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. Further, USCIS claimed the Petitioner/Beneficiary had no right to an appeal.  We felt that the allegations were very serious and could lead to reprecussions for the company.  A detailed discussion of the the incorrect legal and factual assumptions made by USCIS led to a reversal of the decision and reinstement of the labor certification and approval of the I-140.  This was a good way to start the new year for our clients and us.  :-)