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.
I had somewhat complex case.
Firstly, My company lawyer made some blunder and on the top of that i physically relocated to different state during my pending I-140 case.
With these complexities, I came to Mr. Khanna for seeking help to resolve these issues.
I received complex queries by INS for my 140 and Mr. Khanna prepared a technically sound reply and send to INS, and with that, we got 140 approval notice next day without any further query.
We are really very thankful to Mr. Rajiv Khanna & Ms. Heather for their expertise & guidance.
Thanks
Harpal
Rajiv Khanna and associates are helping me in my Green Card processing since January 2004 and recently they did a very good job to get me the I-140 approval. I received an RFE on my I-140 in Feb 09 and response was well prepared by one of the Lawyers and sent within a weeks time. I got the approval on my I-140 just after a weeks time. It was a great job and effort from the Rajiv Khanna's office and their associates. I appreciate their good work and would recommend them to anyone who is looking for a good immigration lawyer for their Green Card or any other immigration related work.
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.
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.
I was directed to the law offices of Mr. Khanna through one of my friends.
It took me exactly 18 months and 18 days to receive the green card since I first contacted Mr. Khanna.
His team, especially Ms. Diane Lombardo, is extremely helpful and efficient.
Going by the accounts of some of my friends, who wasted a lot of time, money and effort, either by trying to file the application themselves or by hiring inexperienced lawyers, I feel that contacting Mr. Khanna's office was one of the good decisions I made.
I would surely recommend the law offices of Mr. Khanna, for any immigration related matters.