FAQ's
Impact of unlawful presence || Unlawful presence for minors ||How can I downgrade from EB2 to EB3 and the consequences || Traveling abroad while H4 EAD is pending || Filing change of address || Starting business while on student visa || Being without a job on AC21 || Citizenship for employees of consulting companies who have projects in different cities after green card || The new restriction on 12 months of CPT OPT combined – – consequences of H-1B denial on OPT || Not worked for green card sponsoring company – – fraud implication for naturalization/citizenship ||
Other
Applying for a visa || Details of applying for a spouse based green card || Cancellation of visa at the airport || Applying for H1 visa || Quitting green card job after getting green card || quarter exemption scratch that H-1B quota exemption || CSPA || Applying for H4 visa while H one extension is still pending
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) amended its regulations today to improve the programs serving the H-1B1, E-3 and CW-1 nonimmigrant classifications and the EB-1 immigrant classification, and remove unnecessary hurdles that place such workers at a disadvantage when compared to similarly situated workers in other visa classifications.
US Work and Immigration Options for Foreign Professionals
U.S. citizens (USC) and Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) may file immigrant visa petitions with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on behalf of a spouse or child, so that these family members may immigrate to or remain in the United States. Sadly, certain cases exist where U.S. citizens and LPRs misuse their control of this process to abuse their family members. Consequently, most battered immigrants are fearful to report the abuse to the police or other authorities out of fear of losing their immigration benefits.
We won this case by submitting evidence of this applicant's substantial publication record as well as numerous recommendation letters which outlined the innovative work performed by the applicant. In addition, referees described the applicant as "one of the best in the field" for his significant discoveries in the biological chemistry industry. The applicant was employed with a very prestigious research institute which only hires the top scientists in the world.
We won this case for an applicant with over sixteen years research experience. She had a substantial publication record. Her expertise was sought for a collaboration with top researchers from the industry. Her contributions to research and academics and her significant international recognition were described in detail in the ten exceptional recommendation letters.
We were able to provide evidence of this individual's membership in a prestigious professional society, international honors and numerous letters of recommendation from industries leading scientists. This individual acted as a judge of the work of his research peers. We were able to provide 15 letters of recommendation reflecting the innovative work performed by this applicant. We also provided evidence to show the extensive citations of his findings.
We won this case with an applicant having over fourteen years of research experience in major industry. We were able to provide 7 letters of recommendation from internationally known scientists. This applicant made great strides in the advancements in hepatitis C research . His work was admired worldwide.
We won this case for an applicant with over twelve years research experience. We were able to provide evidence to reflect the multiple contributions to the metallurgy and metal physics industry made by the applicant. He was the recipient of numerous international awards. He was also a member of many prestigious professional societies.
This individual acted as a judge of the work of his research peers. We were able to provide 12 letters of recommendation reflecting the innovative work performed by this applicant. We also provide evidence to show the extensive citations of his findings. He had over eleven years of research experience and was world-renowned.
FAQ: I-485/AOS/AC21 issues in job through future employer - I-485/AOS; Reentry permit; New Priority Date rules; Priority date port and multiple I-485/AOS petitions;
Discussed: H-1B extension using I-140 receipt; cross chargeability; Losing priority date when I-140 revoked; location change on L-1B visa; Porting priority date to a different job; Spouse of green card holder; H-4 EAD extension; Filing I-485 without employer; CSPA; Birth certificate issues; Petty offense exception; H-1B and maternity leave; I-485 through future employer; etc.
We were asked to provide a second opinion on a complicated case where the US consulate had denied a green card based upon a finding that the beneficiary/applicant had committed visa fraud where they had earlier misused a visa. The consulate directed the applicant to file for a waiver (which is quite difficult to obtain). Note that a finding of fraud is a permanent bar from entering the USA.
We won this case for a tenured-track professor with ten years research and teaching experience. The applicant was a critical component to a U.S. Department of Energy funded project. The applicant was also the key element to securing National Science Foundation funds for his employer. His vast knowledge of inorganic chemistry and his unique multidisciplinary background was proven throughout his numerous recommendation letters offered by experts around the world.
We won this case for the applicant who is considered a leading expert in international affairs, particularly Indo-Chinese relations. We utilized eight detailed recommendation letters which highlighted the importance of this applicant's vast knowledge on China and his outstanding expertise on nonproliferation and security affairs. He had over twenty publications on this critical topic at the time of filing.
We won this case by providing evidence of the impact of the work this applicant was conducting in her field. Numerous referees provided detailed recommendation letters outlining the necessity for the continued efforts of this applicant. Her teaching capabilities were noted as being far superior to others in her field. This applicant's unique background was shown to be scarce in the United States.
We won a case for an applicant following receipt of a Request for Evidence. We submitted evidence to show that the beneficiary qualified for the category having published scholarly articles, authored a book chapter and acted as the judge of her peers. We noted the impact factor for the journals where her work was published and provided citations details. We provided evidence to show that she was a member of an editorial board. The RFE noted Service’s request for confirmation of the permanent job offer.
We won this case for the applicant having over eleven years of experience in the field of semiconductor thin films and solar cells. This applicant had received a prestigious international award. We provided evidence of the criteria of this award as well as numerous recommendation letters from other experts in the field describing the competitive nature of the award. Given the level of expertise of this applicant, he was highly sought after to review for prestigious international journals in his field. This is an honor only bestowed on the very best.
We won this case by providing strong recommendation letters and evidence of U.S. government support of this applicant's innovative research. His previous scholarly publications and impressive presentations were just a few key elements to his unique background. The FAA in particular was interested in the creative talents of this applicant.