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
Discussion Topics, Aug 18, 2022
FAQs: Change of employers after H-1B is approved and before October 1; the number of pay stubs required; revocation of H-1B before October 1 || I-140 was approved and then revoked in 2011. Can I keep my priority date and also apply for I-485? What is the deadline for filing I-485? || Impact of alternate wage survey for H-1B LCA; the success rates of H-1B extensions; AC21 rule when the company is bought by a successor-in-interest
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 stressing the international scope of the extraordinary work that this applicant had done over the course of many years. He was identified by experts around the world as belonging to the top 5% of scientists in his field. His innovative and pioneering work was admired by his research peers around the globe. Many U.S. educational institutes were seeking his services as a research professor. This applicant was "invited" to present his research findings on countless occasions to an audience of the top researchers in the world.
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 a Request for Evidence. Initially, we had submitted substantial documentation to show that the Petitioner qualified for the classification based on his original contributions, authorship of scholarly articles and judging of his research peers. Based on the evidence submitted, Service noted that sufficient evidence was presented to prove authorship of scholarly articles as well as judging of research peers. We had provided copies of the Petitioner’s publications as well as the significant number of citations.
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.