Search

Our client retained us as legal counsel in order to compel the USCIS to grant an Employment-Based Adjustment of Status (AOS) Application. The Plaintiff's case had been on file with USCIS almost three years before he sought our assistance.

Our client’s derivative-based Adjustment of Status (AOS) application was denied.  USCIS stated in its denial that the applicant had been out of lawful nonimmigrant status for more than an aggregate amount of 180 days.  We filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and others (Defendants) alleging, inter alia, that our client (the Plaintiff) would have been out of lawful nonimmigrant status for less than an aggregate amount of 180 days had the Defendants adjudicated Plaintiff’s earlier H-1

Our client, a citizen of China had filed an adjustment of status application on the basis of marriage to a U.S. Citizen. The Plaintiff's adjustment of status had been pending with the USCIS for almost three years. USCIS did not adjudicate her adjustment of status application since they could not get the name check clearance from the FBI.

Our client, a citizen of Taiwan had filed an employment-based adjustment of status application. The Plaintiff's adjustment of status had been pending with the USCIS California Service Center for almost three and one half years. USCIS did not adjudicate his adjustment of status application since they could not get the name check clearance from the FBI.

Our client's original approved labor certification was lost in the mail. We tried numerous times to get a duplicate copy of the approved labor certification from the Department of Labor (USDOL) but couldn't get it from the USDOL. USCIS attempted to obtain a copy and informed us that they were making the attempt. We saw no results.

We requested a reconsideration of a B-1/B-2 visa denial by a US Consulate in India. The applicant and his wife applied for visa to visit their son in the U.S. The wife was granted a 10 year multiple entry visa, but the husband's application was denied based on Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (possible immigrant). This obviously made no sense. Why would one of the husband-wife applicants be denied while the other one granted the visa?  We requested reconsideration, fully explaining the circumstances in his favor and providing further proof.

We were approached by the parents of an applicant whose application for an F-1 visa had been denied based on Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (possible immigrant).Normally, we would have not been able to do much.  But in this case, the visa applicant had already visited USA three times in the past and left in time.While it was true that her entire family lived in USA, the fact remained that she had never violated any US laws, despite having an opportunity to do so. We filed for reconsideration.

We were recently retained to address a strange problem. An H-1 petition was approved, but the parties did not receive the approval notice for two years. The notice was apparently lost in the mail. They submitted an application for a duplicate approval notice, which also was issued and also lost in the mail. The employer then filed an application for an extension of status, which was granted without an I-94 attached to it.

Our client, an electronic document management company was issued Intent to Revoke from the Texas Service <span style="font-size: 1

The consulate revoked an H-1B in 1999. The client received notification of the revocation from USCIS in 2004.  In the mean time he was still working in USA.  We argued against these inconsistent and unconstitutional procedures and submitted an application for extension of his status in 2004.