L-1A
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-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.
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.
A. Yes, now that the GC is approved, your employer should "permanently" give you the job described (including the title, salary and job duties) in the Labor Certification. This change should take place within a "reasonable time" after the GC approval.
I had my interview back in November, at the Buffalo (NY) DO. It was so quick we were in and out of the office within 10- 15 mins. We had a very nice woman officer.
She asked us to swear the oath, she asked us 3 questions and wanted to see our utility bills.
Once she had photocopied them, she came back in the room and said my GC had been approved. She said i should recieve it within 2 weeks, which i did.
Hope everyone's GC interview could be so quick and easy.
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.
By using our web site(s), you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions:
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.
There are very few instances when you want to take time out to appreciate the good work done.
This is one such instance wherein the law office of Mr Khanna was amazingly helpful in applying a change of status to H4.
We had no time to apply for this switch & I am grateful to Mr Khanna & his team, especially Anna Baker & Francesca Barna. They were very helpful & amazingly fast. This was a time sensitive issue & their help was really worth appreciating.
Very courteous & dependable !
I am delighted with their service. I am hopeful & confident that they would continue to provide great service.
Thank you !