We filed an H-1B extension petition for a small software company that offers customer software and technology solutions to the local clientele. USCIS approved the classification portion of the petition, but denied the portion of the petition requesting an extension of stay. USCIS stated that beneficiary had failed to maintain his nonimmigrant status because his H-1B status had expired prior to the filing of the H-1B extension petition and he was only in an authorized period of stay because of a pending extension request from the previous employer.
We responded to a Form I-485 Request for Evidence to prove that approximately a decade ago the permanent residency applicant had, in fact, attended two U.S. universities as he had claimed in previously approved petitions. Both universities had been certified by ICE under its Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) during the applicant’s attendance.
We filed an H-1B petition for a company that provides IT related services, on behalf of the beneficiary, a software developer. An RFE was subsequently issued, responded to and then denied as failing to prove that petitioner established that sufficient speciality occupation work was available and that the position qualified as a specialty occupation. We filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Office, the appeal was sustained and the petition was remanded back for issuance of an approval notice.
We filed an H-1B extension petition for a software consulting and professional services firm on behalf of a software architect requesting status and work authorization for a duration of three years. The extension was, however, approved for a duration much shorter than requested and the approval notice was both dated and received after the shorter validity period had already expired, thereby destroying the legal status of the employee and causing him to accrue unlawful presence.
I have reviewed the recent lawsuit settlement where the USCIS has agreed to consider H-4 holders to be eligible to continue working while their timely filed EAD extension is pending. Unfortunately, the settlement seems to state that the right to work is only co-extensive with your I-94 duration. Therefore, you do not have the right to continue working for 180 days; only till your I-94 expires. While it is better than nothing, the settlement is not everything that we would like to see.
We assisted a client company in filing an EB-2-based PERM. The submitted ETA Form 9089 was selected for an audit by DOL. They requested evidence/explanation as to why only the specified combination of a higher degree and significant years of experience were required, beyond the normal requirements defined by O*Net, a source of occupational data often cited by the government.
We successfully responded to an H-1B request for evidence (RFE), questioning the beneficiary’s maintenance of status. The beneficiary’s previous employer (Employer A) had submitted an H-1B extension. While the petition was pending the beneficiary’s nonimmigrant status expired. An RFE was subsequently received by Employer A, and following the filing of a comprehensive RFE response, the petition was denied.
We assisted petitioner, a public accounting firm, in filing an H-1B petition for beneficiary for the position of staff accountant. We received an RFE requesting additional evidence that the position qualified as a specialty occupation by satisfying at least one of the four qualifying criteria for a specialty occupation. In our lengthy response, we argued that the job duties, as detailed in the petition, and as compared with OOH’s job description for staff accountant not only comports with but goes beyond OOH guidance in its uniqueness and complexity.
We filed an H-1B extension for a specialized medical practice on behalf of a physician who had completed a fellowship in this specialty. We subsequently received a Request for Evidence questioning whether his position satisfied the requirements for a specialty occupation and questioning his current immigration status.
We were approached by an employer in the health and wellness industry to respond to an RFE (Request for Evidence) for an Operations Research Analyst. The RFE indicated that the job duties were vague, and did not allow Service to ascertain the minimum requirements for the position, or determine whether it constituted a specialty occupation. We responded with considerable detail, elaborating on the job duties and providing considerable context about the employer and the strict FDA (Food and Drug Administration) regulations that they are required to operate under.
We assisted an employer in successfully responding to a Request for Evidence (RFE) received subsequent to the filing of an H-1B (specialty occupation worker) extension petition. The RFE requested additional information regarding the employer and the beneficiary’s qualifications. More specifically, the RFE questioned the evidentiary value of an education evaluation that was provided with the petition, requesting additional evidence regarding the qualifications of the college official who authored the evaluation.
In this case we assisted a client whose employee, with a valid H-1 visa stamped in this passport, traveled outside the U.S. and was unable to return due to the COVID 19 travel restrictions. We prepared a comprehensive letter with details about the petitioning employer, the specific project that the employee would be assigned to, and the urgency of the employee’s presence in the U.S., to the consulate requesting consideration under the National Interest Exception (NIE) for business travel to the U.S. for vital support of the U.S.
In this case our client retained us to respond to a Request for Evidence (RFE) that he had received for the I-130 that was filed on his behalf by his sister. There were two issues identified in the RFE: 1. His birth registration certificate was registered more than two decades after the client’s birth. Service requested we provide the oldest documentation available that would establish a sibling relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary; and 2.
We assisted a client company, who develops its own software products and provides related consulting services in filing an H-1B petition to employ a software developer. An RFE was issued requesting additional information regarding the employer, and additional documentation to show that the beneficiary was engaged in a valid curricular practical training (CPT) and was maintaining a full course study in a master’s degree program at a U.S. university at the time of filing.
We have recently been able to successfully reopen a labor certification and get the case approved after it had been closed because of what we feel were errors by two previous lawyers retained by employer. Our client had her case denied and closed over ONE YEAR ago. We were retained for a consultation and in-depth review. It appeared obvious that the employer and the employee were not at fault. It took some effort but the facts were compelling enough that USDOL reopened the case in the interest of justice. The case was approved last week. We truly appreciate the fairness shown by USDOL.
One of the biggest problems in transactions with the USCIS is uncertainty and inconsistency.
Update 1- Feb 8, 2021
Can students on OPT CPT work remotely during the COVID times. ICE says yes. See from page 12 on of this FAQ released by the govt.
https://www.ice.gov/doclib/coronavirus/covid19faq.pdf
Deportation and Denial Policy 2018
A careful review of these appropriate conditions leads to the inescapable conclusion that very little has really changed.
Our association, AILA, has filed a lawsuit against the USCIS today requesting the court to order the USCIS to freeze all immigration deadlines for:
Initial applications
Responses to all Requests for Evidence or other responses due on or after March 1, 2020
Requests for extension of status, maintenance of status
Reprieve from any expiration of status or employment authorization;
Maintaining the status quo for purposes of eligibility for protection from removal, work authorization,
On 10 March 2020, a Washington DC Federal Court overturned the USCIS highly restrictive
standards applied to the consulting industry. This decision has a major positive impact on the IT
industry.
Judge Rosemary M. Collyer held that the USCIS must not administer justice through random
memoranda and must, if it wishes to change the regulations, do so through a formal process. In
fact, the USCIS seems to have illegally targeted the IT industry (“special treatment”):