Search

We filed an ETA 9089 (PERM) Petition by mail in July 2008, as the advertisements were expiring and DOL had a delay in registering the company's PERM account. A denial was issued on the grounds that the advertisements and prevailing wage were expired when the case was received for processing. Further inspection noted a typographical error by DOL in the year the case was received.

We were called upon to correct a situation. USCIS sent an RFE stating that the degree and field of study did not match with the labor certification requirements. The I-140 beneficiary had a degree in agricultural science. The employer's requirement in the labor certification was a BS degree in Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics.

We were hired to respond to an RFE. Client filed an EB2 I-140, where the PERM Petition required a Bachelor's and 5 years of experience. The client received an RFE in which USCIS argued the Beneficiary's degree, a Bachelor's in Commerce from India, equates to a 3-year degree and cannot be considered for an EB2 case. The Beneficiary possessed a four year Bachelor's Degree, however, this was not clearly established on his Degree. The client obtained his BS in Commerce before India switched to a standard 3-year program for his particular degree.

A beneficiary had two three-year bachelor degrees from India and consequently his I-140 petition was denied on the grounds that the beneficiary did not have a four-year bachelor's degree. We were retained after the denial. Our firm was successful in appealing and winning in less than one month. Of course, this case had unique facts. We cannot assume that all three-year degree cases will go trough this smoothly.

There were 4 applicants, all members of a family. USCIS denied them citizenship stating that they were not able to show that they maintained continuous residency requirements for citizenship. Two of the applicants were students. They had gone abroad to study. One of the students had a shoplifting charge against him in the USA and had this as additional ground for the denial.

We filed for Citizenship for a couple living and working overseas on an N-470 for a US company. The couple had met all the requirements for Citizenship, but the US employer needed them to remain overseas until the project was completed. During the processing of the application, they returned to the United States for the fingerprinting and interviews.

We filed an applicant's N-400 Petition for Citizenship where the applicant was out of the US for 400+ days. USCIS issued a RFE requesting information about the applicant's stay outside the United States without the requisite N-470. We were able to provide several arguments justifying the out of country stay, demonstrating that the applicant had no intention of abandoning US Permanent Residency.

A beneficiary obtained an RFE given that she underwent only seven semesters for her bachelor's degree, one semester short of the four years typically required. Our office was able to succeed with the RFE and her EB-2 I-140 petition was granted within four days time.

In recent months Service has issued I-140 RFEs requesting Petitioner to demonstrate ability to pay all immigrant and non-immigrant petitions in specified windows of time. For one client, this entailed analysis of approximately 150 petitions including H-1s (new, transfers, and extensions), L-1s, and I-140s. With detailed explanations of each petition, our firm was able to obtain I-140 approval within one week.

In a case dating back to 2001, Petitioner eventually moved his office to a location greater than 50 miles from the address of the original office listed on the Form ETA-750. In 2008, USCIS issued an RFE requesting Petitioner to submit evidence showing that the new location is still within the same metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) as the original location. While Government Data and distance may suggest the two locations are not within the same SMSA, we created a new and original argument enabling the Petitioner to obtain I-140 approval.

Indian-born client had I-140 Approved and I-485 filed through first Labor Certification case under EB3 with a 2003 Priority Date. He also filed an I-140 under EB2 with a Priority Date of 2006. Rajiv advised to file I-485 through 2nd Labor Certification, requesting Service to permit inheritance of the 2003 Priority Date to have a current I-485 case. Based upon the 2nd I-485 being filed and the EB2 category request, the client obtained his Permanent Residency 1.5 months after filing the 2nd I-485.

Indian-born client had I-140 approved under Category EB2 with Priority Date of 2003 and a pending I-485 case affected by retrogression. The client married a foreign spouse while I-485 was pending. The new spouse was born in Canada, a country not affected by retrogression in the client's category. We filed the I-485 for the new spouse and a request for cross-chargeability for the main applicant. The client's I-485 was approved 3 months after request for I-485 cross-chargeability and the spouse was approved 5 months after the I-485 filing.

We received I-485 RFE's for multiple pending clients where the sponsoring employer is located in State A and the applicant is living in State B. In such cases, USCIS requests justification for the discrepancy in locations. Citing to various section of pertinent legal code in our RFE responses, many I-485 applications have been approved within 60 days of RFE response submission.