H-1B - Specialty Occupation
Our client, an electronic document management company was issued Intent to Revoke from the Texas Service <span style="font-size: 1
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.
We have filed no less than 200 cases where USCIS had denied the application or objected to an application based on the fact that the title and position did not require professional level employees. So far, we have won almost all the cases we have filed on motions to reopen or as new filings.
We filed a case on behalf of our client against USCIS where the H-4 dependents' application for a change status was denied by USCIS because the application was not filed in a timely manner. The dependents were Citizens of Canada who wanted to transfer from TN status to H-4 status. Due to circumstances beyond their control they were found by USCIS to have lost their lawful status in the U.S. We filed a Motion for Reconsideration with USCIS. USCIS approved the application and the applicants were granted H-4 status retroactively.
We filed a case with USCIS where the H-4 dependents of the H-1 visa holder were out of status since 2000. They believed that they were in legal status as long as the H-1 visa holder maintained status in the US. We filed a request for an extension of their H-4 status accompanied by a brief in support of the application. USCIS granted the extension of stay and issued approval notices with the I-94's attached.
We filed a case against the USCIS where the H-1B visa holder attempted to maintain legal status for both him and his H-4 dependents. The attorney at the time filed the application for the H-1 extension, but neglected to submit applications for the extension of the H-4 dependents status. We submitted a request to USCIS for the extensions of the H-4 dependents' status with a detailed legal brief. USCIS granted the request for extension and the I-94's were attached to the approval notices.
Our firm has been successful in numerous H-4 (and H-4 nunc pro tunc) out of status cases (involving unlawful presence leading to a three-year to ten-year bar). Of particular note, one gentleman assumed if his H-1 was renewed, his dependant's H-4s were automatically renewed. Upon learning of the need to file for H-4 renewals, this gentleman consulted various attorneys and even took his case to Court. He was unsuccessful in bringing his dependants back into H-4 status.
We have won several cases where USCIS objected to the temporariness of the position.
Interview Date: Feb 2009
Consulate: Chennai, India
Jan 28, 2009: Called panel doctor Vijayalakshmi and fixed an appointment for Jan 31st, 11 AM.
30th Jan 2009:
Reached Lister Labs at 6:30 AM and no one was there. Security opened the gate and gave us the first token. We were out by 8:30 AM. Collected Sealed envelope at 4:30 PM. X-Ray, blood test cost: Rs 810.
31st Jan 2009:
We have won several cases on extreme and exceptional hardship grounds in addition to the more routine J-1 waivers. We have also processed several J-1 changes of MUA location matters for physicians.
We have obtained several K status approvals including cases where applicant and beneficiary had not actually met.
USCIS denied an L-1A (filed by the corporate counsel) because the buyer was not considered to be an executive/manager. She was not supervising any personnel. We were retained to refile the case. We won the case by showing that though she did not have supervisory responsibility; she was an executive level employee.
We were able to obtain a series of L-1A approvals despite earlier denials. We showed through substantial evidence that a franchise operation may qualify for L-1 visas.
We obtained an L-1A for the director of a consulting company ("think tank") that interprets the impact of political events on financial markets and keeps institutional investors informed on U.S. and world events.
We obtained an L-1 transfer for the president of a company where the company, after one year of operation underwent a structural change impacting the relationship between the company abroad and the company in the U.S. There were some complex issues of ownership and control. We successfully transferred the beneficiary to a new company that was spun off through the structural change .
We obtained an L-1 for the owner of a company where the USCIS posed an objection that the company had only one employee and a team of consultants. We were able to obtain approval, nonetheless.
We obtained a start up L-1 for the president and owner of a company opening a chain of grocery stores. Though the foreign related company had an unrelated business, our firm was able to justify why the beneficiary needed to be transferred to the U.S. to start up the new, unrelated business.
We were retained to assist with re-filing a complex L-1B petition. The case had various intricate issues regarding the beneficiary's eligibility for L-1B classification. One prominent issue was that the petitioner wanted the beneficiary to operate from the client site instead of the premises of the petitioner. The earlier petition, processed in-house by the employer, was denied by USCIS on the grounds that the petitioner failed to satisfy eligibility criteria for L-1B classification.
We won an O1 Visa for the applicant who is known world wide for his expertise is in the area of solid organ transplant pathology. He was working as a surgeon at a prestigious institute. We offered evidence to show that he is part of the small percentage in his field that have achieved the highest level of success and thus is known throughout the world as one of the best surgeons in his specialty. We submitted opinion letters from various world-renowned experts describing the innovative and pioneering results of this applicant's work.
We have obtained several R-1 visas. One case that presented an interesting challenge was where the applicant performed secular, administrative duties. CIS believed that an R visa was not appropriate. We were able to show facts and law that convinced the USCIS to issue the visa.
We have provided consultation and completed some DoD H-1B cases. In one of these, the beneficiary was about to reach the six-year limit of his H-1B status, and changed to a H-1B2 in order to be eligible for an additional four years of stay. It appears USCIS itself is unfamiliar with H-1B2 visas. We often end up educating CIS on even the most basic legal issues in this area.
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.