Others

An I-129 visa petition for specialized knowledge (L-1B classification) was approved in just one week under premium processing for a Korean client. This L-1B visa petition was for the position of sales manager/engineer for a U.S. subsidiary of a major Korean automotive seat/interior manufacturing corporation. The Korean client was already in the U.S. under a B-1 visa and now has an L-1B visa that is valid for three years.

We obtained a one-year extension of an O-1 visa (extraordinary ability) for an extraordinary physician and research scientist whose talents have advanced the state of the art in the medical science and practice of cardiology and cardiovascular diseases. It took just a little over a month for the visa petition to be approved.

One of our clients, a Canadian national had a non-immigrant visa waiver application pending due to several criminal convictions when he was younger. He has a serious medical condition that requires the care of a highly skilled American Doctor. Our attorney Jason Lorenzon was successful at getting our client paroled once into the United States after the Customs and Border Protection at Toronto Airport emphatically stated that would be the only time. The client had a severe allergic reaction to medication and the American Doctor wanted to see our client at his office in California as soon as possible. Attorney Lorenzon tirelessly over a weekend called the Officers, the chief officer and communicated with the Port Director to allow our client in to see his Doctor. After Mr. Lorenzon pleaded and begged CBP Toronto to let our client in, his application for parole was granted and he was permitted to travel to California to see his doctor.

Our client hired us after he had been detained by immigration officials returning to the US due to a criminal conviction. He was placed in removal proceedings and held without bond since he was mandatory detention. Our office filed an application for cancellation of removal. Our client had been a lawful permanent resident since 1990. The case proceeded to a final hearing before an Immigration Judge in Chicago, Illinois. In June 2010, the Immigration Judge, in a thorough and well-reasoned decision, granted our client cancellation of removal. We were able to secure his release that same day. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us after an Immigration Judge in New York denied her withholding of removal application. This was a family planning claim from China based on alleged past persecution and a fear of future persecution. We filed the appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals two years ago. In June 2010, the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with our arguments and found that withholding of removal must be granted. Scott Bratton handled the case.

I-485 filed on 3/26/10 and approved on 6/10/10. Upon filing we reviewed carefully the applicant's admission/departure and status/authorized employment history in the US. Due to a conflict of schedule we advised him to approach the ASC early for accommodation. The case was approved.

We were hired by a Mexican citizen after he was detained by immigration officials. He had a final order of removal after he overstayed his voluntary departure two years ago. He was set to be deported almost immediately after he was detained. We filed a motion to reopen alleging that his agreement to voluntary departure was not knowing and voluntary. We also filed an emergency request for a stay of removal. The Immigration Judge granted the motion to reopen and our client was released from immigration custody. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us after he had a final order of removal and had been detained four years by immigration officials. Although he had been a permanent resident when he was placed in removal proceedings, he was found to be inadmissible due to his criminal record, which included an aggravated felony. His prior attorneys filed 3 motions to reopen that were all denied. They also appealed 3 times to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Each appeal was denied. We were able to work with a Texas attorney to vacate his conviction that was classified as an aggravated felony. However, there were still other convictions that were considered crimes involving moral turpitude. We then moved to reopen the case sua sponte with the BIA. DHS opposed the motion. Earlier this year the case was reopened to allow our client to apply for a 212(h) waiver. The case was set for a hearing. We called six witnesses and submitted substantial documentation to show that out client's wife and daughter would suffer extreme hardship if he is deported and also that relief is warranted in the exercise of discretion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the IJ scheduled the case for an oral decision. In May 2010, the IJ in Houston granted a 212(h) waiver. We were able to get our client released that same day. He was able to be reunited with his wife and children and continue living in the United States as a permanent resident. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Several years ago, our client filed an I-730 petition on behalf of his spouse based on an asylum approval. However, it was not ruled upon. We then filed a mandamus action in federal court in New York. Within 60 days of filed, the I-730 was approved by USCIS. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client hired us after she had several attorneys unsuccessfully attempt to help her reopen her removal case. She had previously been married to a lawful permanent resident who abused her. We filed an I-360 that ultimately was approved. We then filed a request that DHS agree to reopen the case. DHS agreed and the case was set for a hearing on her adjustment of status application. We are happy to report that the Immigration Judge granted the application for adjustment of status. Nearly 19 years after her case started, our client was able to get her green card. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client has a final order of removal. She is from China. She was in ICE custody for about 180 days. We were able to work with ICE to secure her release because she is pursuing a motion to reopen and it is unlikely she would be removed in the foreseeable future. Scott Bratton handled the case.

They got married in March 2008. Wife is from Romania and husband was born in, and a native of Cleveland, Ohio, USA. Their marriage was the culmination of their love, the next step in their relationship, and a new and exciting chapter of their life together. In December 2008, wife got a conditional green card good for 2 years through this marriage. Their marriage began very well but husband's lack of emotional support, neglect, lack of financial support, verbal and physical abuse exacerbated destructive marriage relationship. In March 2009, single incident of physical abuse was committed by the husband and one of his immediate family members. It was documented and reported to the proper authorities. Wife and her elderly mother living with them at that time fled and abandoned the marital home. The incident also granted the wife the right to file I-751 - petition on her own to get her permanent green card without the concurrence of the husband and irrespective of whether or not divorce action was filed or pending between them. In May 2009, we filed the I-751 based on verbal and physical abuse upon the documentary evidence produced and established in that single incident. Evidence was taken into consideration as a whole by CIS as discussed in our Response to Request for Evidence filed in September 2009. The husband was guilty of abuse under existing immigration laws to justify approval of the I-751 4 months after ex-parte I-751 interview.

Our client has been a permanent resident since October 1995. His green card was once renewed valid for another 10 years that expired in September 2006. He could not file an I-90 for the 2nd 10-year extension in 2006 because of the criminal conviction in 2001 of a 4th degree felony from multiple indictments concerning custody and disposition of movable, including intellectual, properties held by him in trust. Without the extension of his green card, our client was technically classified as undocumented alien in this country. We filed the I-90 with our legal representation ready to confront the criminal issues. The application was pending for 6 months before CIS issued the notice for fingerprinting and I-90 biometrics. New green card was approved and issued 45 days after background checks were completed. His immigration matter is not finished. The finish line is approval of N-400 - Application for Naturalization.

The father and husband of a poor family, was picked up by ICE officer a while ago when his wife was pregnant with the 3rd child. The due date was March 5th. We filed Stay of Deportation with ICE promptly and followed up with ICE regularly. First we were told by ICE that the application would be denied. We argued with ICE that it was very sad that the father could not be with his wife when she was delivering the baby, and the wife's case had been reopened and was currently pending with Immigration Court. We pushed the wife's attorney's office to get hearing notice and faxed it to ICE along with a letter. Later we continued to follow up with ICE. Today the father was released. His wife and children were extremely happy and thankful.

The packet 3 & 4 for spouse and two kids filed in March 2009. NVC lost wife's application and only the two kids received IV from US Consulate. We proactively and successfully contacted Legalnet to track down the lost packet. Wife's IV interviewed reinstated and received her IV and was able to come to the US with the kids before their IV expiration.

A Peruvian Nation who has been in the United States since a very young age, was convicted of possession of drugs (marijuana) and had applied for Citizenship which was ultimately denied. Our team went to work and vacated the plea that he had accepted without being read the advisement statutes that if he is not a United States Citizen the entering of his plea may have an effect on his immigration status. The Motion was granted and Attorney Jason Lorenzon went and worked out a plea deal with the prosecutor that would not have any adverse immigration consequences. As soon as a new plea was entered, our Senior Paralegal filed the N-400 application. Attorney Jason Lorenzon prepared our client and attended his interview. The Officer was intimidating and rough with our client, but the attorney kept the interview process focused and the case was ultimately approved! Now our client will enjoy all of the privileges of U.S. Citizenship!

A client came to our office with an expired K-1 status and fear of returning to China because she now has two children with her husband in violation of the One Child Policy. She was also anxious to obtain working authorization. We filed asylum for her under the changed circumstances and successfully obtained her employment authorization within two months of applying. Her asylum case is pending before the immigration court.

Our client's adjustment of status application was denied for allegedly making a false claim to United States citizenship by stating that she was a citizen or national on an I-9 that was filled out in connection with her job. We filed a federal lawsuit with the United States district Court claiming that our client's actions in the case did not amount to a false claim to United States citizenship. Thus, she was eligible for adjustment of status based on her marriage to a United States citizen. After discussions with the United States Attorney's Office, the I-485 denial was vacated and the case reopened. We are now happy to report that our client's application for permanent resident status has been approved. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Our client was placed in removal proceedings. She claims that she entered the United States using a fake passport. She is attempting to adjust status based on her marriage to a United States citizen. She is not covered under INA Section 245(i). Thus, we have to show that she was inspected and admitted. We argued that entry on a fake passport meets this required and that the admission does not need to be substantively lawful, only procedurally proper. The IJ disagreed and said that she was not eligible to adjust status. The case was appealed to the Board. In April 2010, the Board issued a decision agreeing that entry on a fake passport does constitute inspection and admission for purposes of adjustment of status eligibility. The case was remanded for further consideration of the adjustment of status application. Scott Bratton is handling the case.

We represent an individual applying for adjustment of status based on an approved I-140 petition. He is in H-1B status. While the quota was open, he filed an application for adjustment of status. An interview was scheduled by USCIS. However, our client could not attend because he was going to be out of the country on business. We filed a request to reschedule the interview. The interview was rescheduled but our office did not get notice of the new date. Our client also did not get notice. Therefore, he did not attend the interview. We did get notice that the case was denied for failing to attend the interview. We filed a motion to reconsider/reopen based on a lack of notice of the interview. The motion was denied. We then filed a federal lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act arguing that the case was improperly denied. The government filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. We then filed a thorough response stating that the federal court had jurisdiction over the questions of law and constitutional issues raised in the complaint. After filing our response, USCIS, through counsel, contacted our office and agreed to reopen the case and schedule an immediate interview. Our client had his interview on April 30, 2010 and was told by USCIS that his green card application will be approved once the quota opens, which should be about two months. Scott Bratton handled the case.

Applicant has been laid off by reason of redundancy and prior to the employer notifying the USCIS, we timely filed a change of status with direct evidence to demonstrate necessity to stay behind to take care of his personal affairs especially during the tax reporting month. We explain its impact on him after having been in the U.S. for more than 4 years with legal status and now found himself near to out of status and need to have a status to complete his transactions timely. USCIS approved the B2 without RFE.

We advised client of the importance of personal identification in travel documents and proof of status and authorized employment in this type of applications. Clear evidence in support were provided in the filing resulted in speedy approval.

We were retained by an African national and catholic priest: we first filed the I-360 for this client and it was approved without requesting for evidence. Based on the I-360 approval, our office filed the client's I-485 for permanent residency in May 2009 and the green card was received in August 2009, without request for evidence either. 

We successfully applied for change of status from L1 to H1B for the October 2010 numbers. Applicant is a self made electronic engineer who hasn't had a formal degree. We demonstrate with independent and direct proof that he possessed more than sufficient qualifying experience to satisfy the 8 CFR on US degree equivalency. The approval came without RFE.

We successfully obtained B1 extension for an domestic helper for an American executive by providing satisfactory evidence of the necessity to stay during the employer's transfer back to the U.S. The request was approved without RFE.

A Chinese National who entered the country when she was a teenager was a victim of human trafficking. Although she had a final order of deportation, law enforcement officers in the United States used her as an informant in a criminal case against criminals who trafficked her into the United States. She filed for a T visa well before she turned 21 but it was not granted until she was 26 years old! Although she had a final order of deportation, the final order of deportation is extinguished by "operation of law" when her T visa was granted. But, she missed her parents and brother! Our Attorney Jason Lorenzon filed a T visa applications for her parents and brother. The initial filing was rejected because the USCIS stated that she was over 21. Mr. Lorenzon refilled with an extensive brief stating that the regulations permit her to file a T visa because her initial application was pending while she turned 21 and upon the grant she can apply for derivative family members. The USCIS accepted the filing and approved the T visas. After consular processing is completed, this family will be reunited once again here in the United States thanks to the diligent and persistent work of our firm and attorney Jason Lorenzon

A Canadian National married an American Citizen. She was given several job offers in the United States after deciding to remain here. Attorney Jason Lorenzon filed the appropriate I-130 petition , the adjustment of status application and the I-765 the Employment Authorization Document. The I-765 document is usually approved before the initial interview, and this can enable such benefits as working in the United States, getting a social security card and a driver's license. This first part of the application process, the granting of the I-765, Employment Authorization document was approved in a little over 60 days from filing!

A Nigerian National who was placed into deportation proceedings received a grant of lawful permanent residency based upon his marriage to a United States Citizen. Attorney Scott Bratton handled the deportation litigation in which our client was granted lawful permanent residence. After the Immigration Judge ordered relief, the USCIS stalled and would not issue a green card to our client. Our client just finished professional school and had to take a standardized examination or else he would have to go back to school. Our attorney Jason Lorenzon scheduled an info pass on a Friday afternoon, but the computers were down and no one could find the file and were given a number of things that we needed to do. Mr. Lorenzon simply scheduled another info pass for the following week, showed up with the client and the computers were working. Mr. Lorenzon had a copy of the order of the Immigration Judge. The immigration officer went back got our client's file and said everything was being "processed." Still no green card. Mr. Lorenzon asked the officer for an I-551 stamp which is a evidence of lawful permanent resident status. After pleading with the officer , the I-551 stamp was placed in our client's passport while the green card was being processed. Now our client can take the standardized exam and get on with his life. The persistence and creativity of our team and attorneys ensured that this client received his green card.

An Indian National who has a final order of deportation and is under an order of supervision received a work authorization card filed by our office. This work authorization card is valid for a year, and will enable our client to work legally in the United States, get a social security card, apply for a driver's license and receive other benefits. Even though our client has an unexecuted final order of deportation entered against him back in the late 1990's our office is still able to assist clients with compelling circumstances to remain in the United States and work legally. Attorney Jason Lorenzon is overseeing this case.

An alien retained us to file his I-360 Petition with the basis of him being abused by his US citizen wife. The alien is Pakistani and the I-360 was filed on May 19, 2009. The application received prima facie determination and was subsequently approved on March 22, 2010. The alien is now able to file for his I-485 application with this approval. The alien was very happy to hear of this great news. He has struggled with his being abused by his wife and now looks forward to his permanent stay in the US.

Our client hired us after his I-485 had been denied. He came to the United States on a V-2 visa and applied for adjustment of status. However, he was initially found to not be eligible because the priority date was not current. Our client mistakenly failed to file an extension of his V-2 status and had no status when he came to our office. We filed a request to nunc pro tunc extend his V-2 status due to extraordinary circumstances. This would put him back in status. The letter he had received from USCIS after the denial of his adjustment application could be read as not requiring him to extend his status prior to applying for adjustment once the priority date was current. USCIS denied the request and placed our client in removal proceedings. We then challenged the denial of our nunc pro tunc request in federal court. We were able to negotiate a settlement where our client's V-2 status was extended nunc pro tunc to the date he fell out of status. This put him back in status. At that point, we successfully terminated removal proceedings. This also meant that we could re-file the adjustment of status application because the priority date was current. We did re-file the application and the case was scheduled for an interview. In March 2010, which is 12 years after our client legally entered the United States, he was granted lawful permanent resident status by USCIS. Scott Bratton handled the case along with Lori Pinjuh and Jason Lorenzon.

When our client retained us, he had been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude and was subject to mandatory detention during removal proceedings. His case involves several legal issues as to eligibility for relief and has been to the Board and back to the Immigration Judge twice. The case is currently before the Judge. After our client was detained one year, we filed a writ of habeas corpus in federal court asking that the United States District Court Judge conduct a bond hearing. We argued that although our client is subject to mandatory detention, his detention without a bond hearing is unreasonable since he had been detained over one year. We are happy to report that we were able to negotiate the terms of our client's release prior to the bond hearing. Our client has now been released pending his removal proceedings. Scott Bratton handled the case.

One of our clients paid for a $15000.00 bond. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) erroneously stated that the bond was revoked alleging that the alien did not show up for an appointment. Our Attorney Jason Lorenzon wrote an appeal brief outlining the conditions in which ICE is responsible for properly and legally alleging a breach of bond. ICE did not follow government regulations and Mr. Lorenzon argued that ICE did not follow the legal procedure for making such an allegation. The retention of the bond money unjustly enriched the government. The bond money was returned quickly to our client and he got his $15000.00 back.

Our client, a National of Kenya married a United States Citizen. He and his wife filed an immigrant visa petition and an I485 application. The couple has been married since 2007. They attended an interview and shortly thereafter, the USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny based on the fact that he allegedly checked off a box on an I-9 form claiming that he was a United States Citizen. Attorney Jason Lorenzon diligently worked on the case and filed a response brief arguing with supporting case law that even if he did check off that box, it was not a material misrepresentation and he should still be able to be granted his green card. To ensure that our client would receive his green card Mr. Lorenzon also filed a 601 waiver showing that our client's wife needed his presence due to her health condition. She had a plethora of health issues and she really needs her husband here in the United States. Mr. Lorenzon ensured that enough supporting evidence was filed with the 601 waiver and the response to the Notice of Intent to Deny was filed in July 2009. A further Request for Further evidence was issued twice by the USCIS asking for updated medical report since the medical examiner placed them on the wrong forms. Mr. Lorenzon made sure that our client responded by having the doctor place the medical exam on the correct form and submitted a response to the RFE. Within one day, another Request for Further evidence was issued by the Service asking for a particular "box" to be checked off by the doctor. Mr. Lorenzon ensured that our client responded by submitting the same report. In other words, each RFE was very quickly responded to. The USCIS granted a 10 year green card to our client on January 27, 2010.

In applications of this type, we recognized the benefit and importance of clear facial impression on applicant's personal ID as to his or her biographic. We advised client to provide a clear colored copy of their passport personal ID page. This works to facilitate approval avoiding unnecessary RFE. Applications were approved in one month as a reslt.

A US citizen wanted to bring wife here. However, the US Consulate Guangzhou questioned his US domicile requirement of INA 319(b)(1). After reviewing the client documents and researching INA pertinent parts, we sent a brief with documentation showing that even the USC petitioner have remained abroad for extended periods but still maintain a principal residence in the U.S., that his departure from the U.S. is limited and job related, that he has continued ties to the U.S., that he has U.S. pay-roll, and that he works for a U.S. firm, to GUZ to prove that the USC maintained US domicile, that his residence in China is not a principal residence. We successfully demonstrated that his employment abroad satisfied the US domicile requirement in the INA.

On November 30, 2009 we filed for work authorization for an alien from the Philippines. The alien currently has a motion to reopen I-485 application pending before USCIS. We received approval on January 20, 2010. It took less than 60 days for USCIS to process the EAD.

Our client is a Canadian psychiatrist who came to U.S right after the New Year of 2006 on a J-1 visa. So he was unable to change his status or file for permanent residency, or even come back to the United States until he returns to Canada and live there for a full 2 years.  Accordingly, we have determined that the best relief for our client is to apply for a J-1 visa waiver based on an interested U.S. government agency's recommendation. We contacted the Client's employer and successfully re-negotiated his employment contract with a newly inserted non-compete clause. Within two months, we obtained the Ohio Department of Health's approval of placement for our client for a waiver under the Health professional Shortage Areas Program. Under this program, physicians can work in an underserved area for 3 years before he can file for adjustment of status. The Department of Health forwarded their recommendations for a waiver directly to the U.S. Department of State. After multiple intensive rounds of correspondence between various government agencies, the Department of State and the USCIS finalized the waiver when the H-1B petition for our client is pending. Our client successfully changed his status to H-1B on March 26, 2007.  Because our client officially started his job in July, 2006, his 3-year service is done in July, 2009. Our diligent team of professionals timely started to prepare for the client's labor certification as early as Fall, 2007. His PERM certification was done in March 2008, and the I-140 petition for permanent residency was approved On September 18, 2008. We filed for adjustment of status on September 24, 2009, and he was interviewed by the USCIS only 3 months later before the year ends. On January 12, 2010, our client became a permanent resident.

Our client hired us because her permanent resident application had been pending for such a long time with no end in sight. We filed a complaint in federal court seeking to expedite the adjudication of the adjustment of status application. Shortly thereafter, the application was approved. We are happy to report that our client later applied for naturalization and was sworn in as a United States citizen in January 2010. Scott Bratton handled this case.

Client's asylum application was filed on 02/21/2003, then denied on 10/21/2004 by Immigration Judge and with BIA on 02/28/2006. He then came to our office. We filed an appeal with the 6th Circuit on 01/30/2007; the 6th Circuit issued an Order remanding to BIA for further proceedings.
We then filed a work authorization renewal for him on 06/18/2008 based on his I-589 application for Asylum and for withholding of Removal which is pending with the We received a denial of it on 10/16/2008. Our attorney believes the application for work authorization renewal was erroneously denied, so we re-filed the application on 11/24/2008. Our attorney argued that our client originally filed his asylum application on 02/21/2003, not 10/21/2004 as the Service alleged, so it was not denied within 150-day period, therefore our client is eligible to renew his EAD. We received the approval notice on 12/10/2009. Our attorney Scott Bratton is working on the case for BIA appeal.

We filed EAD for a Korean Chinese client on 07/30/2009. Usually it takes less than 3 months to process. Somehow this case was beyond normal processing time. In order to help the client, we mailed the original receipt notice to her for her to show her employer, and called USCIS twice to place 2 services request. USCIS first told us that it was because that client needed fingerprint taken. We argued with USCIS that client had her fingerprint taken in July, 2009. 13 days after we made our second service request, the client received her EAD. Client now is very happy, since her employer keeps her job.

A citizen of China hired us to file a third B-2 extension for her as she wanted to continue to travel in the US. She had the trip planned and an itinerary to show her travels. She also had ties to her home country and plans to return. The B-2 was filed on September 28, 2009 and approved on November 9, 2009 without an RFE. The client was very happy to know that her travel inside the US wont be disrupted because of a visa problem.

We were retained by a physician who is employed at a VA Hospital to work on his green card application based on marriage to his naturalized US citizen wife. The couple is from Taiwan and we filed the I-130/485/765 on September 17, 2009. The I-765 EAD was approved on November 9, 2009. The client will be attending his I-130 interview on December 14, 2009.

We filed for the extension of TPS and work authorization for our client from Nicaragua during the designated re-registration period. All his previous requests for extension were granted. This time however, CIS/INS requested for additional documents that could only be obtained in Nicaragua. We could not get the requested evidence within the deadline to respond to the CIS/INS request within 30 days. However, we submitted whatever secondary evidence we had at that time arguing that it had the same probative value of the evidence requested. Our client was desperate to renew his driver's license. TPS/Work Authorization was approved valid until 2010.

One of our clients, a Canadian National had received a prestigious accounting position with a major firm in the United States. Attorney Lori Pinjuh determined that our client was eligible for this Visa. Attorney Francis Fungsang prepared the TN Visa application and received the necessary supporting documents from the Employee and the Employer. Our client is also married to a United States Citizen and our client was fearful of entering the United States even though our client's spouse was still in Canada and had Canadian permanent resident status there. Attorney Jason Lorenzon prepared her for the initial inspection since Initial TN applications are approved at a Port of Entry. He prepared her for the possible questions that she would face since she was not only seeking admission but also seeking a visa approval. Our client flew in from Canada, and the paper work was processed and an I-94 Arrival Departure record was issued and the visa application was approved. She can live and work in the United States at her current employer.

One of our clients, a Chinese National, was faced with a final order of deportation despite the fact that our client's spouse also had a pending appeal in her case. Our client's appeal was dismissed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and our client was picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement within a day of the dismissal. Our team, lead by Attorney Scott Bratton was quick to file a petition for judicial review in the Sixth Circuit and the stay of removal was granted. As soon as the stay was granted, Attorney Jason Lorenzon contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement Deportation and Removal Department and negotiated an Order of Supervision for our client so he could be released from jail. Mr. Lorenzon contacted the ICE Officer at 1:00 pm, visited the Officer at 1:30 and at 3:30 our client was released from ICE custody under an Order of Supervision. Our team worked tirelessly to get our client out of jail!

Client came to us to help her after her USC husband was convinced by a USCIS officer to withdraw his I-130 application. After we were retained, our attorney Jason Lorenzon researched the case and recommended that our client refile the I-130 application with her husband, work authorization and application for the greencard. The word authorization is the first step in this process and that was approved so our client can work in the United States during the pendency of her I-130 and I-485 application! Congratulations to our client who can continue to work legally in the United States.

Our client from Africa entered the United States in 1997 with an F-1 international student visa. She never left the country. Confronted primarily by financial hardship over the last seven (7) years, her F-1 status expired and at some point in time, she engaged in unauthorized employment. She applied for immigration benefits under LULAC, the old AMNESTY Law, to legalize her stay.  She got married to USC in March 2009 and thus, we wasted no time to file a marriage case. However, it was not a straight forward case. All the information gathered from our client revealed that she was not eligible to apply for benefits under LULAC. That was a major concern. We prepared the facts very carefully to present the correct relevant information to CIS for adjudication. Work authorization was approved within 45 days from filing and the case was approved in August 2009 three months thereafter.

One of our clients, a national of China has a final order of deportation. Our client was granted a stay of removal for 90 days at the beginning of 2009. Our office subsequently asked for an extension in March, April, May and July. Each time Immigration told us that was the last one. Our attorney Jason Lorenzon was successful in convincing the Immigration Officer overseeing our client under an order of supervision to grant another stay for an additional 60 days by offering evidence that our client's USC young child needed her parent here in the United States and that our client need more time in assisting her child to adjust to life potentially without her parent. At the beginning of September, Immigration and Customs Enforcement granted another 60 day extension of the original extension. This shows that even when there is a final order of deportation our team is still able to help keep our clients in the United States!

One of our clients, a national of Ghana, had an I-130 visa petition filed on his behalf by his United States Citizen Spouse. She passed away suddenly, without warning and at a very young age and before the couple was married for two years. This is one of our first widow cases. Attorney Jason Lorenzon filed a motion to reopen which USCIS granted and concurrently filed an application for work authorization. Mr. Lorenzon had asked the service for a two year work authorization which was granted! Our client is able to work with authorization for up to two years while Congress re-writes the laws concerning widows during the pendency of a filed immigrant petition before a USC spouse died.

Our client was denied adjustment of status by USCIS. She was married to a United States citizen and filed for adjustment of status based on her marriage. Since she was not covered by INA Section 245(i), she had to show a legal entry. She did not have an I-94 card but claimed that she presented herself for admission at the Canadian border and was allowed to enter along with the other people in the car in which she was traveling. We filed a federal lawsuit challenging USCIS' decision and arguing that the manner in which she claimed entry constituted an inspection and admission so that she could adjust status. After filing the federal lawsuit, USCIS agreed to reopen the case and granted our client's application for adjustment of status. Scott Bratton and Debbie Lee handled the case.

Our client hired us after his application for adjustment of status has been denied by USCIS for failing to maintain his nonimmigrant status. This was because he had applied to renew his V visa late. We believed that there was a legal basis to challenge the underlying denials. There were exigent circumstances and USCIS failed to recognize that it had the authority to nunc pro tunc grant an extension of status even where the underlying request is untimely filed. Our office filed a federal lawsuit against USCIS challenging the decision to deny the extension of status. We were able to successfully negotiate with the US Attorney's Office and USCIS and received a nunc pro tunc grant of the extension for status. The result was that the extension of status went back to the date his last V visa expired and up until October 2009. With the approval by USCIS, we were able to get removal proceedings terminated since our client is now in status. Additionally, our client is now eligible to apply for adjustment of status. Scott Bratton, Lori Pinjuh, and Jason Lorenzon handled the case.

Our Client entered without inspection from Mexico well over 10 years a go. He has a USC wife and USC child. Although he is eligible for cancellation of removal, given the courts are so backlogged, he has an approved I-130 petition from his wife and our team prepared his applications for consular processing in Mexico. He was given an interview in the Mexican Consulate in Juarez Cuidad in September and our team and client thought he would be eligible to receive a green card faster through counselor processing. Attorney J.P. Sarmiento filed a motion for voluntary departure and hearing was scheduled for August 31, 2009. Attorney Jason Lorenzon attended the hearing. The government attorney did not have our client's file, so Mr. Lorenzon had a succinct and successful conversation with the government attorney who in turn did not oppose our motion. Our motion was granted, enabling our client to return back to Mexico and be consular processed and apply for a waiverand receive his green card rather than waiting almost two years for a hearing on cancellation of removal.

Our client, a citizen of Romania, was placed into deportation proceeding and our team filed applications for relief including asylum, withholding of deportation and convention against torture. In January 2008, the Immigration Judge denied these applications and our client appealed this decision. Our client did experience past persecution but the judge declined to make a finding whether or not the respondent had suffered past persecution. The Immigration Judge without making that determination found that the government had overcome any presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Our team pointed out that legal issue in its brief to the Board of Immigration Appeals.  Furthermore, the BIA found that they could not find support for the Immigration Judge's finding that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances in Romania since our client suffered past persecution by the same people who are currently running the government of Romania! The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with our position and remanded the case back to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings!

The follow-to-join alien is an adopted child. We successfully proved legal adoption and required co-habitation period were met. The I-824 approved and NVC is to begin the packet 3 and 4 process for consular interview.

G.B., a citizen of Nicaragua, retained Margaret Wong & Assoc., CO. LPA, after his application to adjust status was denied by USCIS because he was considered inadmissible due to his criminal convictions. His previous lawyer had not filed an appeal on the case. Therefore, our office re-applied for his Green Card along with an I-601, Application for waiver of grounds of inadmissibility, based on the extreme and unusual hardship that his US Citizen Wife would suffer if he was ordered removal from the USA. CIS denied the application. Our office filed a timely appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office and a Motion to CIS to reconsider its decision. The motion was denied but ultimately the Appeal was granted. Our client is now a Legal Permanent Resident.

Our client, who is Indian national and research scientist in ceramic technology, hired us for his immigrant worker petition. We filed his I-140 petition in Feb. 2009 with Lincoln Nebraska Center and the petition was approved in June 2009 without request for evidence.  

Our firm was able to get a green card approval very quickly and without much resistance from the USCIS for an East Indian National who married a United States Citizen. Attorney Jason Lorenzon prepared our client and his wife for his interview with the USCIS and had them prepared to explain the reasons why they did not have a lot of "bona fides" of marriage since they both just graduated undergrad and one was attending grad school. Also, the clients were prepared to explain the Indian marriage traditions of prearranged marriage, culinary traditions and other Indian cultural traditions of marriage. Attorney Deborah Lee attended the interview. The client and his wife were not married for very long. They did not have much in the way of financial assets, a car or even a lease since they lived with her parents. Both just graduated University and the other was still attending graduate school. This was all explained to the USCIS since the standard for marriage cases is very high. Our team did a good job from filing to preparing our client and his wife for the interview and ended up in a result.

We were retained by a Mongolian client with 3 family members: a very unique lady who is a well established opera singer and also a highly educated teacher. Our office took her cases in when she was denied the self petitioned I-140 under Alien of Extraordinary Ability together with her I-485 application. We first helped her secured an O-1 visa through consular processing in Mexico to secure her non-immigrant status, and then re-filed her I-140/485 under the same EB-11 category to make sure she could also work for employers other than her O-1 visa petitioner. In the meanwhile we handled her visa lottery case after she was selected and given a case number. Knowing it's more complicated to handle the DV visa in the U.S. than to have the client to the designated foreign consulate for green part, to save client and all her three children's travel expense and hardship, as well as not to interrupt the children's school schedule, we worked with the client and filed the I-485 in Feb. 2009 for them so they can adjust their status in the U.S.. After many follow- ups and coordination, this lady client and her two daughters received their green cards in mid July 2009 and because of this, one of her daughter was able to get a full scholarship from a prestigious private college for all 4 years. Her youngest kid received his green in the mid August 2009. Attorney Lori Pinjuh and Paralegal Jilan Zhang in our office worked closely with the client throughout the entire process to make sure that she stay in status and that she and her family get the green cards.  

A Filipino citizen was working in the household of an American family living in the United Arab Emirates. The worker did the laundry, cleaning, and looked after the two children in the family for one year. The U.S. citizen wife decided to return to the U.S. with her two children to visit relatives and finish her graduate degree. She wanted the household worker to accompany them to take care of their household in the U.S. The worker entered the U.S. with the family as a Domestic Servant of a U.S. citizen with a B-1 visa valid for 3 months. The family planned to stay for at least one year, so we applied for an extension of the worker's B-1 status before the expiration of the 3 months. At the same time, we also applied for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), which the worker must have for work authorization. Four months later, both the extension and EAD were approved.

A client from the Ukraine applied for citizenship, and her application was denied. The client owed money in taxes, and the Service requested documentation that she had paid all of her taxes. Due to various mitigating circumstances the client did not provide the requested documentation, and the application was denied. She retained our firm, and we requested a new hearing on the application and provided explanation and documentation as to why she did not provide the appropriate documentation to the Service in a timely manner. The client appeared for a second citizenship interview, and her application was approved. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

A highly regarded, award winning internationally recognized concert artist was asked to come and conduct a master class. Our team did not have enough time to get an O-visa approved, so we researched and found out that our client could enter on a B-1 Visa under an academic exception. We prepared the appropriate letter and prepared the client. He was able to enter the United States after inspection and admission without any incident or further questions from the Customs and Border Protection.

Our team was successful in getting a detained client (originally from the People's Republic of China) out of jail thanks to the work of Attorney J.P. Sarmiento. The client then went to his first master calendar hearing and our Attorney Jason Lorenzon asked for a continuance due to a pending I-130 application for alien relative filed by his United States Citizen Spouse. The Government vehemently opposed the motion due to a "Notice of Intent to Deny" and claimed that the marriage was not bona fide. Mr. Lorenzon quickly retorted that our Notice of Intent to Deny rebuts the allegations of the USCIS and there is an explanation for each of the USCIS's concerns mainly being a language barrier, lack of interpreter and lack of understanding of the Chinese marriage cultural practices. The Judge granted the motion for continuance giving the USCIS time to adjudicate the I-130 petition and saving our client from a final order of deportation.

A client from El Salvador never had Temporary Protected Status (TPS). He tried to file back in 2001 within the registration period. He filed TPS by himself but he never got it right. He tried renewing every year but he never got it because he never obtained the first one in the first place. The application may have been incomplete when he filed it as he filed it himself. Our client also had a final order from 1999. He retained our firm in 2008. We reviewed the files he gave us, apparently there was a Request for Evidence back in 2001 that he did not respond to. He was not eligible for late registration. We found out that his sister between 2001 onwards had several medical issues concerning her brain and had to undergo surgery. Our client said this took a toll on him both emotionally and financially that's why he never obtained an attorney. Apparently the only way that he could "renew" TPS is if we could reopen the first TPS application in 2001 and nunc pro tunc renew each succeeding TPS application. We filed a Motion to Reopen Nunc Pro Tunc the 2001 TPS Application, arguing that through no fault of his own, and due to his sister's medical condition, he wasn't able to respond to the Request for Evidence and properly file for TPS. Together with that we filed a TPS renewal application. The Motion to Reopen was approved and our client recently obtained his TPS and is now eligible to work. He also could not be deported despite his final order and initial illegal entry to the United States. Attorney JP Sarmiento handled the case.

Our client's I-765 was shortly approved. She attended her I-485 interview in November 2007 during which we argued that the client should be protected under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) because the new I-130 petition by her mother should automatically retain the priority date of the original petition of 1994. CSPA is a law that addresses the problem of minor children losing their eligibility for immigration benefits because they had aged-out or turned 21 years old. Even though our client had turned 21 years old, she was a minor when she was listed as a derivative beneficiary on the original I-130 filed for her mother in 1994. After numerous follow ups with Immigration officials, our client's I-130 and I-485 were successfully approved.

We were hired to represent a Korean family whose adjustment of status applications had been denied by USCIS due to fraud. The issue was not with the current filing but with a prior application filed on the family's behalf by an immigration consultant. That application was clearly fraudulent. However, it was our position that our clients were unaware of the fraud and did not even review any application prior to it being filed. Our client (the father) was now the beneficiary of an approved EB-5 petition and the family was seeking to adjust status based on that petition. We renewed the adjustment of status applications with the Immigration Court and denied the allegation that our clients committed fraud. We also were able to get the hearing moved up to before the date the EB-5 law was supposed to sunset. In March 2009, we presented the case to the Immigration Court. After hearing the evidence, the Court agreed that our clients did not knowingly participate in any fraud. The Court granted the adjustment of status applications. Scott Bratton represented our clients.

Alien and son from Romania retained us to work on their H-4 visas based on the already approved H-1B for the principal applicant (spouse/father). The father had an H-B valid starting October 1, 2007 but the previous attorney never filed for the H-4's for the wife and son. The wife and son consequently had unlawful presence for 183 days. We took over the case and requested USCIS on December 9, 2008 to approve the H-4's with a back date based on technicality. With our strong expertise and knowledge we received approval (on March 18, 2009) of the two H-4's with validity dates starting October 1, 2007. Now the family can travel and has 0 days of unlawful presence. The family can also not worry about adjusting status. The case was worked on by Margaret Wong and Brian Marek.

Hindu Priest and family applied for I-131s and I-1485s based on approved I-360 (religious workers visa petition) through our office. These I-131s were filed in December 2008 and are all approved in Feb 2009.

I-360 religious worker/Buddhist Monk: Our office was contacted in April 2008 to provide green card evaluation for a religious leader of a newly established Buddhist group. After we talked to him, we were very impressed/fascinated with his personal and religious background, his education and career but in the meanwhile very puzzled by how he had worked in the United States. He just worked, everywhere, upon request and invitation. The organization was so loosely structured, no 501 ( c) (3) determination although it was/is a religious organization, and the leader was like a travelling star working at many Buddhist centers in the U.S. and foreign countries each of which is a separate business entity. We really believed that this religious leader could get a movie deal faster than a green card.  To help with his green card application, we spent a lot of time studying their religious activities, figuring out his employment history, and exactly how he was compensated and also helped the group with the 501 (c) (3) filing. We filed the case in May 2008, and submitted more evidence in Sept. 2008. In Feb. 2009 the I-360 was approved. We also had two other religious workers' I-360 approved for the same group. We are very excited about the approvals for this client and we also heard that someone has contacted this client for a documentary.

Catholic Priest from Africa: We filed i-360 in Feb. 2009 to California Center and it was approved in April 2009, in only two months, without RFE.

Our client hired us after her I-360 petition had been pending several years. We filed a mandamus action in federal court to compel CIS to complete adjudication of the I-360. Within a short time of filing, the I-360 was approved. Our client and his daughter can now proceed on their adjustment of status applications. Scott Bratton and Lori Pinjuh handled the case.

Immigrant visa for Religious Worker I-360: A Catholic Priest from an African country who has been serving local churches and charitable organizations; specifically, a major Catholic Diocese in the United States as a missionary/priest. We filed the I-360 in October 2008 and it was approved in March 2009. Jilan Zhang, one of our senior paralegals, worked on the case.

I-360 religious worker/Buddhist Monk: This client worked with the Buddhist leader we mentioned above but came to the U.S. at a later date. He did not have two year employment history in the U.S yet when we filed his I-360. We worked with the foreign entities he served before and gathered detailed information about his activities, compensations and affiliations. His visa petition was filed in May 2008 and was approved in Feb. 2009.

A client from China entered the U.S. on a K-1 fiancee visa, but she did not marry the petitioner within 90 days after entering the United States because he abandoned her. She decided to remain in the United States and fell in love with and married a U.S. citizen. We filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative for them providing ample proof of a bona fide marriage. The I-130 Petition was approved, and now we will start consular processing for the couple so that our client may obtain her green card.

A client from China was granted asylum on a conditional basis in March 2001 because the immigration judge found that he was eligible for asylum based on resistance to the family planning laws in China. The order was conditional because at the time the client was in proceedings, not more than 1,000 persons could be granted asylum in a given year. The numerical limitation on asylum grants were lifted as of May 2005, and we worked with the Executive Office of Immigration Review to obtain a final grant of asylum. The client received a final grant of asylum in February 2009 and will be eligible to apply for a green card after one year. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

I-131 Advanced parole based on Pending I-485: We had a Pilipino religious worker case. After the I-360 approval, in June 2008 we also filed I-485, I-765 and I-131 (Green card, work authorization and travel document) with Nebraska Service Center. In July, the I-131 and I-765 were approved. The entire processing time for approving I-131 and I-765 took a little over a month. We are following up with the green card, which is under regular processing times.

Our client from India came to USA with a K3 (Fiancée Visa). She got married to a United State Citizen in March 2007 and her husband filed an I-129F for her in May 2007. Also, he decided to hire our services for the residency of his wife. We started our process by filing I-130 in April 2007 which got approved in November 2007 along with I-129 F. She got her interview scheduled in U.S Consulate in New Delhi in March. Everything went well and she arrived in U.S in April 2008. By the end of April we filed her application for I-485, I-765 and I-131(Green card, work authorization and permission to travel respectively). She was scheduled for fingerprints for May 2008. We noticed, however that USCIS had made a mistake by writing the wrong case numbers. We informed the Department of Immigration timely and they rectified. Now we have received the work authorization for her which gives her the complete freedom to work anywhere. Hopefully she will be a permanent resident soon and we will be happy for her.

Our client was a teenager from China who entered the U.S. on a tourist visa to visit his relatives. While in the U.S. he discovered that he needed jaw surgery and filed an extension of his B-2 visa. USCIS denied the request stating that the applicant had not provided enough evidence to demonstrate that his stay would be temporary. Our firm filed a motion to reopen the denial of his B-2 extension providing evidence demonstrating the client's need for surgery and the temporary nature of his stay. The motion to reopen was granted, and the client's B-2 visa was extended another six months. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

A client from the Ukraine came to the U.S. on J-1 exchange visitor program. He applied for a Master's Degree program in the field of computer science at a university in the U.S. and was approved. Our firm filed the application to change his status to an F-1 visa. Immigration requested more information showing that the applicant would return home after his studies. We filed the request for evidence response, and the application was approved. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

A client from the Ukraine came to the U.S. on J-1 exchange visitor program. He applied for a Master's Degree program in the field of computer science at a university in the U.S. and was approved. Our firm filed the application to change his status to an F-1 visa. Immigration requested more information showing that the applicant would return home after his studies. We filed the request for evidence response, and the application was approved. Deborah Lee handled the case for the firm.

In August 2007 we filed I-131 (Advance Parole, travel document) for a Chinese family, concurrently with their I-485 (Adjustment to Permanent Resident). We also filed  I-765 (Working authorization) for the mother only, a very busy market research analyst. The I-765 was approved in mid November 2007, but the travel documents took longer to process. We did follow up and insisted on expediting the I-131, enclosing a letter by her employer stating the need for her to attend travel abroad for an international business meeting. Finally in January 2008, USCIS approved only the parents travel documents. We insisted and placed an inquiry about the little daughter's I-131, which had not been approved. In March 2008, they issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) to have us indicate her country of birth...even though her birth certificate and translation were attached to the petition! After immediately responding the RFE, we got her travel document approval and the family was able to make arrangements to visit their country while their green card case is pending.

We filed I-485 and I-765 petitions (Adjustment of Status and Employment Authorization Card) for a Mexican client on February 25, 2008. She had her fingerprints taken by the end of March 2008 and her I-765 was approved one week later. Currently we are waiting for her I-485 approval, which will take some more months, according to USCIS regular processing times for this petition.

We filed an I-765 petition (Employment Authorization Document) for an Indian Analyst-Programmer in December 2007. The petition was approved in the last days of February 2008, valid for a year. We are also waiting for USCIS to process his pending I-485 (Adjustment of Status to Permanent Resident), both for him and his wife. According to USCIS processing times, their cases (I-485) might be processed in one more month, which will enable them to get their green cards soon.

Our client entered on a B-2 (Tourist visa). We were retained by his prospective employer to work on his labor certification application and I-140 (Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker). He is a chef from Hong Kong. In order for the alien to keep status, we filed a B-2 extension on March 17, 2008. It was approved by USCIS 2 days later. The client now has a valid B-2 through September 2008 and is pending I-140 as the labor certification has been certified as well.

I-131and I-765: I-131 (Advance Parole - Travel Document) and I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization) were filed in December 2007 for our client, a Kenyan entrepreneur. The filings were based on concurrent EB-11 (Alien of Extraordinary Ability) and I-485 (Adjustment to Permanent Resident) . The I-131 was approved in January 2008 and the I-765 in February 2008. Now our client can legally work and travel outside the country while his case is pending.

I-131 and 765 I-131 (Advance Parole - Travel Document) and I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization) were filed for an Indonesian national, in January 2008 to Texas Service Center based on pending I-140 (NIW) Immigrant Petition for an Alien Worker based on National Interest Waiver), and I-485 (Adjustment to Permanent Resident). Both filings were approved in less than 2 months.

A Polish lady with accounting and business administration skills hired us to help her obtain a green card through an employer willing to sponsor her. She had two sons and a fiancé who were also foreign-born. We first filed the Labor Certification in 2001 and helped the employer file the I-140 immigrant petition on her behalf in July 2002. She got married the next month, so in September 2002, having the I-140 pending, we filed for Adjustment of Status (I-485) for her, her husband and the two sons. We also filed I-765 (Employment Authorization Document) for both adults. Her I-140 was erroneously denied in February 2003, so we filed a Motion to Reopen and Reconsider (MTR) in the same month. Since the I-485 applications were based in the I-140 (at the time denied and under appeal), we filed another I-140/I-485 in March 2003. The MTR was granted in August 2004, prior to the second I-140 being adjudicated, so the first I-140 was remanded and approved and the first I-485 application was reopened for our client by the USCIS. We filed a request for the CIS to sua sponte re-open the rest of the family, but CIS only sent notice of re-opening the sons' I-485 applications, and failed to send a notice pertaining to the husband. However, shortly after our request for sua sponte reopening, the I-485 interview notices for wife, husband, and sons, were issued and at the interview, the CIS officer assured us that the husband was included in the interview as a result of the MTR. At the same time, the officer insisted that we withdraw the second I-485 application since two I-485 applications were pending for the husband at that time. We agreed so that once the priority date became current, the whole family's I-485 applications would be adjudicated together. For two years, the wife and husband received work authorization cards and continued to wait for the immigrant visa number to become current. However, in late 2007, the husband's application for work authorization was denied, due to the I-485 being denied. Since no action on the I-485 had taken place and the immigrant visa remained unavailable, the firm could only deduct that the husband's initial I-485 remained denied and had never been reopened. In December 2007, we filed a MTR again just for the husband, referring to all the errors and lack of attention to his case from the administration. The Motion was quickly granted, and the I-485 case for the husband has been officially reopened. Even better, now that we have the attention of the CIS, the immigrant visa number has just become current in March 2008 and we have been assured that their case will be quickly reviewed so that the entire family's I-485 may be granted right away. Our attorney Lori Pinjuh handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates.

In August 2007 we filed an I-140 for our client from Chile, a PhD in Electrical Engineering, as an EB-2 (Professional with an exceptional ability and advanced degree). He had been working with an H-1B (Non-Immigrant Worker) visa before. In October same year we filed his I-485 (Adjustment of Status to Permanent Resident). He was scheduled for fingerprints soon after that, but we had to reschedule because our client needed to travel and he was very busy. In mid February he received the approvals of both I-140 and I-485. He e-mailed us, very happy and thankful for all our help during the process.

Our client from India came to USA under a V-1 status (as wife of a Legal Permanent Resident), with her son and daughter with V-2 status. (as LPR's children). Her husband became abusive to her. She came to us to see what to do, since she could no longer live with him, and the V-1 and V- 2 status would expire in February 2008. We filed an I-360 petition for her (as Self-Petitioning spouse of abusive LPR) in December 2006. During this process her daughter was kidnapped by the husband, so we advised her on what to do and contacted her with the Office of Children's Issues. Later she got divorced of the husband and got custody of her children. USCIS made a Request for Evidence, so we continued following up and sending more information about the case and documenting the abuse. The I-360 was approved in August 2007. However, the approval stated that she and her children were not eligible for Permanent Residence yet, and that their priority date was 12/19/2006, according to the filing of the I-360. That meant that they would have to wait for several years before filing to request permanent residents. This priority date was chosen by CIS in error, since they were the direct beneficiary and derivative beneficiaries of the ex-husband's petition on their behalf (12/28/1998) when he became a resident. We filed for a review of the approval so that the priority date could be corrected. We provided the Code of Federal Regulations, all the pertinent documents and followed up several times. The CIS reviewed our request and granted the I-360 with the amended priority date. In mid February 2008, we finally received the Amended Notice of the I-360 approval, with a priority date of 12/28/1998 which allows our client and her children to immediately file for permanent residence to enable the family to receive their Green Cards without a need to rely on the abusive ex- husband. Our attorney Lori Pinjuh handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates.

We filed I-765 with Nebraska Service Center for a client from Lebanon on September, 2007. After two months, our firm receives a letter of Request for Evidence (RFE) on this case. We filed the I-765 RFE on December. The client called us that he got his Employment Authorization Card in a mail at the beginning of January.

We filed I-765 (Employement Authorization Document) and I-485 (Adjustment of Status to Permanent Resident) application with Texas Service Center on August, 2007 for a client from Nigeria. The client called to tell us that she received her EAD in the mail on January, 2008.

Or client hired us to help him obtain a bond. He was in immigration custody and transferred to Pennsylvania and then Texas. We filed a motion for bond and had a hearing before the Immigration Judge. The Judge granted a bond. However, when we tried to post the bond, ICE stated that the Judge's decision was in error and that the Judge did not have jurisdiction to grant the bond because our client entered as a crewman. ICE issued an I-863 for asylum-only proceedings and refused to release our client despite the Judge's bond order. We filed a Motion to Terminate proceedings arguing our client was entitled to removal proceedings as he did not technically enter as a crewman and that the Judge's bond order should stand. We also filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court in Texas. At the last hearing, the Judge granted our Motion to Terminate. ICE agreed to release our client on the original bond. Our client has posted bond and has been released. Scott Bratton and Margaret Wong handled the case.

An I-539 Application (to extend visa) was filed with California Service Center on 10/23/2007 for Philippines client holding B1 visa. We received the receipt notice on 10/31/2007 and the approval notice on 1/14/2008. This case took less than 3 months.

We filed I-539 application to extend B1 visa for our Indian client on 09/21/2007. Then, we got a letter from USCIS to request for more evidence (RFE) on 11/16/2007. B-1 RFE was filed with California Service Center on 12/05/2007. We finally got the approval notice on 01/14/2008.

Our firm filed I-765 (Employment Authorization Document) for a Croatia client on October, 2007. On November we called USCIS to ask why we hadn't received a Receipt Number for our client's case. They told us it would take up to 90 days to receive it, but we got the receipt notice at the end of the same month, and the application was approved in January, 2008.

I-140 Petition for an immigrant worker was filed for our South Korean client on December, 2006. We got Request for Evidence (RFE) letter from USCIS on December, 2007. Our firm filed for the REF on January 4, 2008 and the petition got approved on January 15, 2008

We were retained to help an individual file an I-90.  We filed on 11/23/2007 and on 12/21/2007 the permanent resident received their new green card. 

We filed I-140 EB2 for our Chinese client at the end of November, 2006. We called CIS and placed an inquiry about his case on September 2007. Our client got response saying CIS needed more time to view I-140 cases. On November, 2007, CIS sent us a Request for Evidence letter. We asked our client for more evidence and filed RFE as quick as we could. His I-140 petition got approved within one month after we filed RFE.  

We filed I-485 together with I-765 application for Employment Authorization (EAD) for our client from Sri Lanka on August, 2007. The EAD was approved on December, 2007.

We filed I-131 Advance Parole Travel documents for a client from Moldova in August, 2007. The document was issued on December, 2007.  

Client first came in mid July 2007, hired us for a I-129F (petition for Fiancée) who lives in Thailand and has never been in USA. We filed his petition on 07/31/07 and it was approved on 12/24/2007. Currently we are waiting for NVC to send petition and supporting documents to US consulate in Thailand, where Fiancée will be interviewed prior to issuance of I-129F visa, with which she will soon be able to travel to USA and be married in this country as well.

I-765 work permits : Nigerian national, case filed based on approved I-360 and pending I-485. Filed in October, 2007 and was approved in Nov. 2007.

I-131 advance parole: Tanzanian national: cased filed based on approved I-360 and pending 485, in October, 2007 and approved in Nov. 2007.

 We were retained by an individual after he applied for a US Passport.  The applicant of Hungarian descent was born in Youngstown, OH.  He subsequently received a letter from DOS denying the application because they said is name came up in the system as having expatriated himself, which consequenlty caused him to lose his US citizenship.  We asked for evidence of this expatriation.  The Dept of State found that the applicant did not perform any specific act of expatriation voluntarily and with the intent to lose his US nationality.  This is great news for the family as the applicant's name was cleared and is now permitted to apply for US citizenship without any issues.

Work authorization for a citizen of Romania was filed in June 2007 and was approved in September 2007.

Green Card applications that were filed for husband and wife for the citizens of Indonesia in June 2007, were approved by September 2007.

Our firm filed Work Authorization application for a citizen of Mexico in May 2007. USCIS rejected application stating that client is not eligible. Our office argued this rejection and case was accepted and approved in September 2007.

An H-1B Petition was filed for a citizen of India via regular processing in July 2007. Case was approved in September 2007 with validity until 2010.

An H-1B Petition was filed for a citizen of India in September 2007 and was approved immediately within few days.

Work authorization filed for a citizen of China based on a pending I-485 application in July 2007 was approved in September 2007.

Advance Parole document along with Work Authorization for husband and wife from India that filed in July 2007 was approved in September 2007.

Our office received an approval to I-765 application after a week of issuance of a receipt notice for a citizen of China.

Advance parole document was approved within a week for a citizen of Romania after issuance of a receipt notice.

Green Card application that was filed for a citizen of India in June 2007 got approved in three months.

An H-1B Petition was filed in August via regular processing for a citizen of Pakistan got approved within a month.

An I-140 Petition for a citizen of Ukraine was filed in April 2007. Petitioner's income taxes were below the proffered salary.

EAD filed for client from India in July 2007 approved in September 2007.

After numerous arguments with USCIS based on eligibility of green card application of Indian citizen, originally filed in January 2003, case was finally approved in September 2007.

EAD filed for a citizen of China in June 2007 got approved in September 2007.

An EAD filed for citizen of India was approved within three weeks of filing.

I-485 for Indian couple was filed in 2003 and was pending for four years due to quota. As soon as priority date became current, our office sent an inquiry to USCIS informing them of availability and requesting an approval on this case. Clients received their I-485 approval notices in September 2007.

I-130/I-485 Forms were filed with the Service Center for a Romanian individual in April 2007. Case was approved immediately after initial interview in September 2007.

An I-140 Petition for a citizen of Poland was filed in April 2007. Request for additional evidence was issued in August. Our office spent one month on gathering adequate material. RFE was submitted in September 2007 and was approved within a week.

Our office filed an I-360 immigrant visa petition for a Catholic Religious Sister/Nun in Jan 2007 and received a request for more evidence from CIS in March, 2007. We filed a response to CIS in June to their request. However, the petition was denied in July for "not enough evidence". In August 2007, our office filed a Motion to Reopen this petition with further evidence and argument, and the I-360 petition was approved in September 2007.

Work authorization for a citizen of China was filed on August 14, 2007 and approved immediately on August 24, 2007.

Work authorization for a citizen of Korea was filed on August 15, 2007 and approved less than 10 days, on August 24, 2007.

Work authorization for a citizen if Lithuania was filed on August 16, 2007 and approved again less than 10 days, on August 24, 2007.

An H-1B Petition was filed for a citizen of Korea by another attorney of record and a Request for Evidence was issued to proof that the beneficiary's job duties are relevant to the petitioner's business. Our firm was hired less than a week to put together an argument and respond to request that was issued by USCIS. Case was approved within a week after submission of RFE.

Work authorization for a citizen of China was filed on August 14, 2007 and approved on August 24, 2007.

Work authorization for a citizen of China was filed on August 15, 2007 and approved on August 24, 2007.

An H-1B Petition was filed for a citizen of Taiwan with USCIS on August 24, 2007 and approved on August 28, 2007 valid for three years.

An I-140 for a citizen of Nigeria was filed on April 18, 2007 and successfully approved on August 24, 2007.

An I-140 for a citizen of India was filed on April 18, 2007 and approved with no complications on August 24, 2007.

I-765 for a citizen of Korea was filed on August 15, 2007 and approved on August 24, 2007.

Canadian national: filed R-1 Visa at the Canadian Border for Protestant Church and Visa/I-94 was approved for 3 yr on same day in July 2007.

I-360 Religious worker/minister for Protestant Church: Nigeria national: filed 10/31/2006 to Lincoln but was transferred to California Center. The case was site audited, and was asked for more information twice and finally got approved on July 30, 2007.

I-140 Perm based: Chinese national, second preference, filed to Texas in Feb. 2007 and was approved in July, 2007.

I-131: Advanced Parole: Indian national, filed to Texas in early June, 2007 and got approved in later July.

Client was detained and his family came to our law firm to release him from custody. We advised our client to prepare a notarized statement in response to the order to show cause and resulted in the discharge of the order to show cause. Furthermore, client's motion for a stay of removal is granted. Client is thus now eligible for release and we are in contact with immigration and customs enforcement to free him from custody.

A Chinese family of four came to the United States on tourist visas and they wished to extend their stay for another six months after their I-94 expired. We submitted extension requests for all four people and received extension approvals in 3 months. They can now enjoy their stay until October 2007.

Client from Kenya retained our law firm to file his second B-2 extension request one day before his first extension was going to expire. He had already applied and been granted one 6-month extension on the grounds of receiving medical treatment. We gathered new evidence to support his request as it is normally more difficult to apply for second extension. We were able to submit his application on the second day and were able to get him an approval which extended his stay for another 6 months.

I-129 L-1B visa petition for specialized knowledge Chinese citizen was approved in just 1 week under premium processing. This L-1B visa petition was for the position of manager for a major instrument-manufacturing corporation in the US. The Chinese citizen will go for NIV interview in the US consulate in Shanghai, China to obtain his visa and he will be able to start employment as soon as he arrives in the US.

An India national failed to appear for hearing and an in absentia order of removal was issued by the Immigration Court. He therefore retained our law firm to vacate his order of removal. We filed Motion to reopen removal proceeding with Executive Office for Immigration Review and the government chose not to respond to this Motion. After reviewing the substantive supporting documents and affidavit we prepared on behalf of the client, the Immigration Judge granted the proceedings to be reopened and the order of removal to be vacated. Client's matter has been set for Master Calendar hearing for a future date.

Our client hired us after he had a final order of removal.  He married a United States citizen after the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal of the asylum denial.  We filed an I-130 petition based on his marriage to a United States citizen.  The I-130 petition was approved after an interview in Los Angeles.  We then requested that ICE enter into a joint motion to reopen to allow our client to adjust status with the Immigration Judge.  ICE counsel agreed to reopen the case and a joint motion to reopen was filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals.  In June 2007, the Board reopened the case.  This will allow our client to obtain his green card with the Immigration Judge.  Scott Bratton represented our clients.

Our client hired us after he was denied by DHS and transferred to Oakdale, Louisiana.  We filed a bond motion, memorandum in support of bond, and a great deal of supporting documentation.  After a bond hearing, our client was released on bond as we requested.  Scott Bratton handled the case.

Korean citizen came to the US on B-2 visa and was given 30 days authorized stay with his 10-year multiple-entry visa. She came to visit her husband who is a permanent resident of the United States. B-2 extension application was filed a week prior to the expiration of her authorized stay and approval was received after 30 days. Now she is authorized to stay until September 2007.

Israeli pianist’s EB11 petition was denied. Our office was retained to file appeal on his behalf and to re-file green card application and employment authorization application. While all other petitions are still pending, client’s work permit has been approved and received.

German wife, initially entered the United States, as an L-2, dependent of an L-1, international executive transferee.  They remained in the US, filed for an extension of their L status, and even travelled together to receive their new L visas.  However, their lives became estranged and the L-1 husband travelled internationally frequently, with fewer and fewer trips home to spend time with his wife and son.  When it came time for their status to be renewed, and coincidentally taxes to be filed, the German wife reviewed the paperwork provided by the CPA only to find that her husband had been spending most of his time outside of the US, that the US company had actually stopped paying him a US based income, and that his travels likely included trips to a paramor in Germany.  AT the time when her husband filed for a divorce in Germany, she filed for a change of status to become a student in the US in hopes of beginning a new life.  The Service, however, issued a notice of intent to deny providing information to the German wife that her husband had entered the US via the visa waiver program during his most recent trips to the US, rather than continuing in his L-1 status.  Learning this information, our office was able to respond to the notice of intent to deny and facilitate an approval of the change of status even though the wife had actually remained in a dependent status in essense beyond the time when the husband had left the US and his corresponding status. Attorney Lori Pinjuh worked on this case.

A Pakistan national came to the United States to visit his cousin. As the 6-month validity of his tourist visa was coming to an end, he decided he wanted to stay in this country for an extended period. Client drove to our Cleveland office with his sponsors and we executed a 24-hour turn-around and filed an extension with USCIS, as it must be received before the expiration date of his visa. Extension has just been granted until July 2007.

Naturalized US citizen wanted to bring his two children from Beijing to Ohio, USA. Our office helped him in applying I-130 under the category of “Unmarried Child (Under age 21) of US Citizen”. One child’ I-130 was approved in less than two months and USCIS erroneously issued a RFE for the other child. We replied immediately and pointed out their error. As a result, the other child received his I-130 approval as well. Their petitions have been forwarded to the National Visa Center for further processing. In the meantime, we will soon commence to bring his fiancé to join him also.

L-1/2 application for Mexican engineer was filed and approved. As L-1 extensions are granted in two-year increments, we requested two-year extension for his wife and son after his extension was approved. Extension approvals granted and received. Processing time: two months and 10 days.

Change of status from H-1B to B-2 for client and her family from Sri Lanka were filed. Originally client planned to apply for H-1B extension status. However, she had difficulty getting the employer’s consent in signing the forms. In order to bridge the gap, we assisted our client in filing a change of status for her and her two family members. All three applications to change status were approved. However, this new status is only valid for six months. Therefore, we have also formed a long-term plan for our client so that she may stay in the US as she desires. We will continue to work with our client.

Korean client has I-485 filed based on approved I-360 as she is a religious worker. Her and her husband’s I-485 applications have been pending and are outside normal processing time. Therefore in order to continue to retain employment eligibility, renewal applications for employment authorization documents were filed and approved. Processing time: one month and a half.

Naturalized USC came to Margaret Wong & Associates for assistance when his I-129F petition for alien fiancé was denied by USCIS. Client did not keep a copy of his filing and we could only assess the situation from the limited documents he could provide to us. We thus filed FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) in order to review his records. As the National Record Center has been centralized and has an enormous backlog, the waiting time to receive records is generally prolonged. We recently received client’s records on CD. This will help us better evaluate our strategy in further assisting our client in his immigration matters.

Deportation proceedings were initiated against Egyptian client and we filed for asylum and withholding of removal on his behalf. In order to fully evaluate his background, we needed to obtain all his records from the Court as well as from USCIS. Both copies have been received by our attorneys today. Along with this FOIA CD, our office also received four other FOIA CD’s.

Two weeks before her tourist visa expired, Russian client came to our office for assistance in filing an extension. Our office lost no time in preparing and gathering all pertinent documents and submitted the application in one week. B-2 extension was granted after three months, which is the current USCIS processing standard.

Bangladesh client obtained advance parole in 2006 but did not travel on it. This year he intends to travel to home country and we therefore once more applied for I-131 advance parole for him. Application was approved after three months and 3 travel documents were sent to our office. These documents enable our client to return to the US so long as he returns before March 2008.

Our office today received two L-1 approval through premium processing with California Service Center. These two L-1 visa were based on an L blanket petition which we filed in 2004 for a renowned automobile corporation. Our clients are Japanese nationals and we are now working with their employers to set up their interview for consular processing. Their spouses will also be able to accompany them to the USA on their L-2 visa.

From 2006 we started working on our Peru client’s immigrant petition based on his employment as a sportsman. His employer petitioned I-140 for him and we processed all the paperwork regarding I-140 and I-485. This year, as our client’s P visa was going to expire in March, we filed extension for him in January through regular processing. Two months later we received his extension approval which is valid for another two years, until 2009.

Our office applied for I-131 Advance Parole for our client and family to return to their home country United Kingdom for a visit while their application for permanent residency was pending. It was filed in January and approved in March. We also obtained their H-1B and H-4 extension approvals from California service center within two weeks of filing through premium processing in February. Furthermore, our office has also been the attorney retained to file their green card applications. We expect to receive welcome notices for our client in the near future.

Our Chinese client is an H-1B extension holder and has I-485 pending. For double protection, we filed work permit application for her and it was approved in 2 months.

A client with three family members came to the US on a tourist visa, which was going to expire after six months. In December 2006, our office filed B-2 extensions for all four of them and Nebraska Service Center extended their authorized stay to June of 2007.

Son came to visit his mother from Morocco and his B-2 visa was going to expire in January 2007. He came to visit his mom who is a permanent resident of the United States. They wanted to spend more time together so they found Margaret Wong & Associates to assist them in filing B-2 extension. We prepared the filing and submitted it in January. The approval notice which extends the son’s stay until July was received in our office yesterday.

Client from Inner Mongolia, China retained dour law firm to file I-485 and H-1B for him and in the meantime to apply for a work permit for him. EAD application was submitted in January and approved in March. His wife also holds H-1B status and filed H-1B extension through our firm.

Iranian client retained our law firm to file for asylum. We analyzed her situation and assisted her in filing asylum based on religion and membership in a particular group. Our attorney attended interview and asylum was preliminarily granted. While security checks were pending, our office filed for work permit for her so that she may work, and it was approved in merely one month.

We filed I-485 for Lebanese client under 245(i) and requested interim EAD for him in the meantime. It was approved in less than 3 weeks. We have been working together with this client for many years and we expect our client will receive his green card in the near future.

A US citizen came to our office because he filed K-1 for his fiancée but the American Consulate in Vietnam returned it to Nebraska Service Center for review and possible revocation after K-1 was approved. We promptly followed up with the case with the Consulate and at the same time filed FOIA to review in order to review the papers. After close examination, we decided the best policy would be to withdraw the K-1 petition. Client traveled to Vietnam and got married with his fiancée. We subsequently filed both I-130 and K-3 for client, both of which were approved 3 months after they were filed. Wife received his K-3 interview soon after, but we decided to push for the IV interview. Through our persistent efforts, the Consulate consented to combine the two cases, processing the IV application using the K-3 interview date. Wife and client were thrilled to receive her immigrant visa and they called our office right away to thank us. We are very happy for our client as in a short period of one year, we helped our client out from a hopeless situation and they can now reunite in the United States.

P-1 visa for Jockey/athlete/entertainer, from Peru, approved in less than 2 months from California Center. Attorney Lori A. Pinjuh worked on this case.

Travel document/ advance parole for musician from Israel, approved in less than a month.  

O-1 visa  for physician from Peru, approved in a week with premium processing from Vermont Service Center.

Our clients from South Africa needed to return to their home country for a year after they obtained their green card. We filed I-131 application for this couple in November 2006. In March 2007 both husband and wife received their travel permits which are valid for two years.

Mr. G, a Russian national, obtained his permanent residence with the assistance of our law office in July of 2004. He gained his green card through employment. In 2006 his employer who sponsored him for permanent residence through the filing of a labor certification intended to assign Mr. G to their post in Russia and this assignment would last two years. Therefore, we helped Mr. G in filing for I-131, Application for a Re-Entry permit. We substantiated the filing with sufficient evidence and the I-131 application was approved in 90 days, valid for two years until March 2009.

A Bosnia client came to the US on B-2 and decided to file for asylum a year after his arrival. We sat with our client and extensively studied the case. After we filed the asylum application, we also filed I-765 for him so that he could work legally while his asylum application was pending. The I-765 application was approved in less than a month.

We have been applying for O-1 visa for a Peru national yearly since 2003. Client is a cardiologist and we successfully obtained an approval for our client each year. This year we have just submitted his 2007 extension application with California Service Center and we expect an approval in the near future.

Our client was denied withholding of removal by an Immigration Judge in New York.  The Judge determined that our client was not credible, that he did not establish past persecution and that he did not establish his life or freedom would be threatened if he returned to China.  We were hired to file an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.  The Board also denied the appeal.  We then filed an appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  Based on our extensive legal arguments, the Second Circuit found significant errors in the decision of the Immigration Judge and remanded the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals.  We then filed a brief with the Board in support of our client’s case.  In March 2007, the Board held that there was no basis for the adverse credibility finding and that our client did establish past persecution.  Thus, the only question remaining was whether the Government could overcome the regulatory presumption of future harm that arises when an applicant establishes past persecution.  The case was remanded to an Immigration Judge to make this determination.  The Government must prove a fundamental change in circumstances or that internal relocation is reasonable under all the circumstances.  Otherwise, the Immigration Judge must grant withholding of removal.  Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates.

A previous R-visa holder was denied an R-1 visa application at the U.S. Embassy in Hungary after several attempts to get the visa. Both Employer and the R-1 applicant were desperate and contacted our office for help.  After a thorough study of the client’s nature of work and his qualifications, our office wrote a strong argument to the Embassy and an R-1 visa was approved.

Our client from Nigeria retained us in November of 2006 for assistance in filing a motion to reopen regarding a denied F-1 student visa.  We filed the motion to reopen on November 28, 2006 and were notified of approval in February 2007.  Our client was pleased of this great success.  Attorneys Margaret Wong and Lori Pinjuh worked on the case with assistance of paralegal Brian Marek.

Our client retained us for help in getting her US Passport.  She was born in China but has been in the US since she was 2 years old.  Our client received her passport in the mail on January 2, 2007 and she was very pleased that the New Year has started out so well with this wonderful news.

Our office was retained after CIS denied our client’s application for naturalization based on its determination that he knowingly and/or willfully failed to register for Selective Service.  We filed an N-336 to appeal CIS’ decision.  We also appeared at the interview with our client in an attempt to establish that the failure to register was not knowing or willful.  After the interview, our client received notice that the appeal was granted and that his naturalization application was approved.  Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong & Associates.

The Board of Immigration Appeals determined that removal proceedings against our client must be terminated because she was not subject to removal for fraud or a material misrepresentation.  Scott Bratton handled the case for our Firm.

Filed an I-765 employment authorization in a difficult case in May 2006.  CIS kept dragging its feet on approving a valid employment authorization application.  After several attempts and requests with CIS, the I-765 filed at the end of May was finally approved in September.  Although it took longer than expected, the Employment authorization is valid until the following October thanks to our efforts!

A Portuguese National who has been a legal permanent residence since the 1980’s came to us to file a renewal of her green card and we convinced her to file for citizenship!  In order to keep her green card current, we filed that and that was approved within two weeks.  We filed her application for citizenship at the end of September and her interview for citizenship is scheduled for the end of November, less than two months from filing to the interview!

When our client came to our office, she had a conviction for Petty Theft which would have prevented her from filing for Naturalization until 2009.  Our office filed a Motion to Vacate her Plea.  This motion was granted and the client’s criminal conviction was vacated.  Our office represented our client on the renewed criminal charges and ended up getting the case dismissed.  Our client now has an Application for Naturalization pending and is awaiting her Naturalization interview.  Troy Murphy handled this case for our firm.

Amazing doctor from Fuji is finally happy to be in the final stages of his immigrant process. We first were introduced during his residency in the US under a J-1 program. We helped him receive the benefit of an O-1 petition by a VA hospital, and then accompanied he and his family to the US Consulate for visa assistance. We then assisted him to receive a waiver of the 212(e) requirement and fulfill his H-1B three years of service. We filed an extension of the H-1B and a concurrent H-1B in order to continue to practice both at the VA and a nearby prestigious university medical department. Throughout his efforts at the VA and the University, he maintained his outstanding classification and qualified as an alien of extraordinary ability. We assisted him to file an EB-1 petition, for which a long and extremely ignorant and unrelated RFE was received and timely responded. While we waited for the approval of this petition, he was offered a tenure position with the university, so we assisted him filing a premium processing outstanding professor/researcher petition. This is where we are today, as the I-140 outstanding professor/researcher petition has been approved in a mere 10 days. While we equally expect that the lingering EB-1 petition based on his extraordinary abilities and recognition in the field will eventually be approved, he and his family are extremely happy to know that they have an immigrant petition approved, and are eligible to have an adjustment application adjudicated for an immediately available immigrant visa. Attorney Lori Pinjuh and Paralegal Jilan Zhang have continued to work with the physician and his family throughout the years from O-1, to J-1 waiver, to H-1B and extensions, to immigrant visa.

Family that began a labor certification process back in April 2001, had nearly finished the process with an I-485 application to adjust to permanent residence interview in Chicago in September 2005. Their priority date was current and they were happy to be reaching an end to the long process. During the interview, in which our attorney attended with clients (husband, wife and daughter), the computers were down for the USCIS, and the adjudicating officer reported that she could not check whether the clearances had been made on fingerprints. Our attorney advised that the clients needed a new fingerprint schedule since they had never been fingerprinted since the beginning of the I-485 process, approximately 2 years earlier.

Family wait, we wait, we write several letters urging the fingerprints scheduling notice, and we wait some more. Next items to be received 5 months later by both the clients and our office are denials of the I-485 applications for failure to attend the scheduled fingerprint appointment or within the allotted time thereafter, although the denial notices suspiciously do not list the date that the notices were sent or the time-frame of the scheduled fingerprints. We file a Motion to Reopen stating that neither the clients nor our office had received the fingerprint notices, that perhaps the officer had thought she provided a written notice on the day of the interview, but the computers would not allow the form to be printed, and that the cases should immediately be re-opened.

We wait, and wait, and write several follow up inquiries, and wait. At a time when the clients were just about to refile the I-485 applications and applicable fees, just because they could not afford to wait any longer, the Motions to Reopen were granted and although the CIS did not address whether the fingerprint notices were actually mailed to the clients or they had thought to have been hand delivered at the interview, they did, in fact, admit that they had failed to notify our office as attorney of record, and would therefore re-open the cases. Attorney Lori A. Pinjuh handled this case for Margaret Wong & Associates.

In June 2006 our office filed FOIA request for our client from Russia. In August we were notified by the National Record Center that they had completed searching the relevant records and a fee for the copies needed to be paid. After the fee was paid, we received copies of FOIA records in October. These records are to be used to help our client’s MTR proceedings.

CL filed for a change of status to F-1; CIS denied the application and we promptly filed a Motion to Reconsider. CIS approved the application based on the documentation submitted with the Motion.

Our office was retained on September 26, 2006 to file a Nonimmigrant Petition on behalf of a band who had to perform in the US within a month. We filed P-3 case on October 3, 2006 and had case approved on October 18, 2006.

In March 2006 our law firm filed TN visa petition for a client from Canada. Client was petitioned by an influential corporation in Cleveland, Ohio. He is a scientific technologist in the area of applied programming. Nebraska Service Center issued a Request for Evidence in June. We were asked to submit further demonstrate our client’s knowledge in several disciplines. In 1 week we gathered all the necessary supporting documents and summated our response. On October 5 it was approved, allowing our client’s TN visa to be extended for another year, which is what the employer requested.

Our office filed premium processing service for an already pending I-140 for a physician from India.  We received approval prior to the mandatory 15 business day adjudication period by USCIS.

We filed LC for a client from PRC in 2001 and it was approved on 10/10/2001. We subsequently filed I-140 and it was approved on March 5, 2002. I-485 and I-765 were then filed to start client’s green card application process. On July 19, 2006 we filed I-765 third renewal with California Service Center and it was approved on August 8, 2006.

On July 26 2006 our law office filed I-765, Application for Employment Authorization for a client whose green card application had been pending with Nebraska Service Center. On August 22 2006 we received an approval notice for the work permit application and the work permit valid for one year was mailed to our client soon after.

Our clients’ I-485 applications based on husband’s I-140 approval have been pending so in June 2006 we filed I-765, application for employment authorization, for the couple. In the beginning of September the applications still had not been adjudicated jet so we set up infopass appointments for our clients to talk to CI officer. However, the day before the scheduled infopass appointment we received approval notices for both of them. Their new EAD’s will be good until September 2007.

Our client is a national of Pakistan and is employed by a medical center in Missouri, USA. As we filed green card application for him in July 2006, we also filed I-765, application for work authorization in August. The application was received by Nebraska Service Center on August 17 and was approved on September 19. It only took 33 days for our client to get his work authorization for C09 category.

Back in August our law firm filed I-140 for our client from India. Our client is a system analyst with a hotel business in Ohio, USA. Although the I-140 was approved in September, I-485 is still pending. Therefore, our law firm filed I-765 for our client to extend his work permit after it expires in November, 2006.The petition was received by Nebraska Service Center on August 21, 2006 and it was approved on September 22, 2006 so it took only one month. The new EAD card will be valid until September, 2007.

Our Canadian client and her husband wish to work in the US and travel back to Canada with their two children while their green card applications are pending. Client is a physician whose I-140 was approved in June 2006 and whose I-485 was filed in August. As a result, we filed for advance parole and work authorization together with the green card filing. Both client and wife’s work permits were approved in 20 days. The family also received their advance parole documents, which are good for a year, one after another in 30 days. As of September 28, they have received all four advance paroles and the two work permits.

On July 11, 2006 we filed I-765 renewal for a P.R.C national based on his pending I-485 application which we filed on July 6, 2005. Client is a PhD research fellow for a major university in Missouri, USA and a beneficiary of NIW. EAD renewal was approved on August 8, 2006.

We filed an application for work authorization for a client whose green card application had been pending with USCIS. Client filed for green card based on his qualifications as an outstanding professor. On August 18 2006 we received approval notice and our client can now work for a full year until August 2007.

Our client and his wife wished to travel temporarily outside the United States while their application for permanent residence was pending. Our law firm filed Advance Parole for client and wife on May 8 2006 and it was approved on June 5 2006. Client and wife were allowed to travel for a maximum of one year.

Our client came on a J-1 visa to the United States from Japan. After the exchange program, our client decided to go back to his home country to fulfill the 2-year home residency requirement. In the meantime, our office filed I-140 petition for our client. Our client was petitioned by a major health care foundation in Ohio. He qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability in the filed o medical science. We listed our client’s qualifications in great details. We later received Request for Evidence asking us to further establish our client’s credentials. We filed our response and I-140 was approved and he was scheduled to appear for an Immigrant Visa interview. But by then our client had not fulfilled the 2-year residency yet so we requested Tokyo embassy to reschedule. In January 2005 we filed I-824 and it was approved on October 24. Unfortunately our client had not confirmed a job offer yet so we request US embassy in Tokyo to once again reschedule the IV interview from December 2005 to September 2006. Our client then found an employer who was eager to have him in the United States. Our client went to his interview in A/C Tokyo and the interview went really well. He was told by the interviewing officer that his visa would be issued in 3-4 weeks. Congratulations to our client who has become a close friend of our law firm during his long journey to the United States.

On May 30, 2006 our law firm filed I-131 Application for Advance Parole together with I-485 and I-765 for our physician client from Egypt. Our client’s husband was also a client of our firm for whom we had previously secured I-140 and I-485 approvals. Client’s green card application was based on her derivative status. Our client was a J-1 visa holder thus we obtained a waiver for her earlier. Our client wishes to travel back to her home country with her husband while her application is pending. On October 2, we received an approval notice for the advance parole application and it is good for a year until October 2007.

I-485 Applications for husband and wife were filed with  Nebraska    Service Center in January 2003 and later were transferred to local office for adjudication. Husband’s I-485 was approved in April 2005. Wife who is a derivative adjustment applicant had pending I-485 for 3 years. CL signed contract with our firm in July and we immediately sent follow up letters to various service centers requesting adjudication. Wife was granted LPR end of September 2006.

Client who was in a rush to go for overseas trip asked our firm file his H-1B case in expedite matter. We filed his case on September 11, 2006 via premium processing and it got approved on September 21, 2006.

CL overused his 6 years under H-1B; however just received an approval for his pending I-140. Our firm filed his H-1B with request for 3 years under AC21 on June 30, 2006. CL was granted 3 years extension beyond 6 years under his H-1B on September 28, 2006.

EB2 August quota for Indian nationals was closed. CL contacted our firm end of July and we immediately filed his I-485/I-765 under pending I-140. Case was filed last days of July, 2006 and client was granted work permit end of September 2006.

Our client from the Philippines came to the US in March of 2006 with K-1 visa by virtue of K-1 petition by her fiancée, a United States Citizen.  They met in the Philippines and started their relationship 6 years ago.  They got married upon her arrival and we filed I-485 in May, 2006.  Her adjustment of status approved and green card issued in September 2006.

Both our clients from El Salvador entered the US before 1989 without visa. They met in the US and got married.  After laboring for more than 15 years getting immigration benefits, our office successfully obtained husband’s green card in 2005 under NACARA benefits.  Wife’s NACARA application by “derivative status” is currently under consideration. For the meantime, Temporary Protected Status and work authorization for the wife had been approved valid until September 2007 to continue her legal stay.

Our client came in June 2000 with J-1 visa, not subject however to two-year foreign residency rule.  He abandoned the program and overstayed.  In 2003, he got married to a permanent resident.  Our office immediately filed the I-130, then, after the wife naturalized, we requested to upgrade the I-130 category to an immediate relative to allow husband to adjust.  Husband’s I-485 filed in June 2006 was approved in September 2006 and permanent green card valid for 10 years was issued.

Temporary Protected Status and work authorization for our client from El Salvador had been approved recently for the 5th year valid until September 2007. He entered the country without inspection sometime in 1994 when he was about 14 years old, entirely dependent upon his USC sister for support.  Now, he has become independent and has started building a decent life of his own.   

Our office was retained to assist our clients in obtaining permanent resident status.  After the applications had been pending for a long time, we recommended filing a lawsuit in federal court.  We filed a Complaint with the United States District Court in Dallas, Texas requesting that the federal court compel CIS to adjudicate the adjustment of status applications.  Soon thereafter, the adjustment of status applications were approved.  Scott Bratton handled the case for Margaret Wong and Associates.

Our client came to our office for filing I-130 family-based visa applications for his two Iranian parents. We filed the I-130s in November 2004, and received approvals from USCIS in February 2005. After receiving the NVC immigrant visa notice, we filed the appropriate fees, DS-230 forms and I-864. The client’s parents went in for their visa interview with the American Consulate (A/C) at Abu Dhabi, UAE in April 2006. Within a few days we received notice that they were being issued immigrant visas. This was third country processing.

Our client’s wife, a legal permanent resident, came into the office to have us apply for a V visa through the American Consulate (A/C) at Guangzhou, China. The quota for the F2A was not current, but we submitted the V application in October 2003. By 2004, the National Visa Center had issued an Immigration Visa (IV) application package. The A/C Guangzhou also told our client to file for IV at the same time, since the wait for the V was still very long. We submitted the IV application by February 2005, and the visa was issued by February 2006. The client and his wife are both extremely pleased, and are now just waiting to officially receive his green card.

We filed a I-140 Schedule A Nurse petition for a registered nurse from Canada; I-140/ I-485 filed concurrently on Oct 2005. I-140 Schedule A was approved on March 2006.

Our client was an ethnic Chinese immigrant from Malaysia who had come to the United States in order to find a better job to support his wife and children. Being a legal U.S. permanent resident, he wanted to bring his family over to the United States. However, his wife was technically ineligible to apply for her green card after overstaying her visitor’s visa. The only chance was to file an I-601 Waiver of Grounds of Excludability based on the hardship to our client as a U.S. green card holder, which we did in late 2004. The U.S. Embassy contacted us within a few months about a Notice of Intent to Deny from USDHS Bangkok. The client was thinking about withdrawing his petition, but we persuaded him to give it a final try. We carefully crafted a response that noted the various personal and societal hardship issues that would affect our client if his wife could not come to the United States, and sent our response in March 2005. Approval was finally granted in September 2005.

Company in Florida wanted to hire an engineer in Mexico. H-1B is not an option as numbers are already gone so we filed for a TN. TN was approved and employee was given a 3-year authorization to work with the US company.

Our client had applied for adjustment of status with his parents. After an interview by CIS in Dallas, Texas, his parents were granted adjustment of status. However, our client’s case was not also granted. After making numerous inquiries for a year, we decided to file a lawsuit in federal court to compel CIS to adjudicate our client’s adjustment of status application. Attorney Scott Bratton filed a Complaint with the US District Court in Dallas, Texas. Shortly after filing the Complaint, our client’s adjustment of status application was approved. Scott Bratton and Susan Saliba worked on the federal lawsuit against CIS, while Jackie and Liliya helped with the I-485.

When our client hired our office, he and his daughter had been denied adjustment of status. They had refilled their adjustment of status applications with CIS. However, the daughter’s application was denied as she was over 21 and CIS held that she was not covered under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA). Our office filed a Motion to Reopen with CIS and a Complaint with the United States District Court in Akron, Ohio arguing that the first denial of the adjustment of status application for the daughter was erroneous. We also argued that the second denial was erroneous because our client fell under CSPA and should be treated as a child, and thus covered as a derivative beneficiary. After filing a Complaint in federal court, CIS agreed to reopen the case and treat the daughter as a child, making her eligible to adjust status. The application will be granted once an immigrant visa number is available. Scott Bratton handled this case for Margaret Wong and Associates.

Our clients had filed applications for adjustment of status with CIS. The applications had been pending over three years. Our office made several attempts with CIS to expedite the processing of the case. We then decided to file a Complaint in US District Court seeking to compel CIS to adjudicate the applications. Shortly after filing the Complaint, the adjustment of status applications were approved by US CIS. Scott Bratton handled the federal litigation. Mr. Bratton worked with Jackie Tong on the adjustment of status applications.

Our client survived an apartment fire that killed his brother and his brother’s family, including three children. Since our client’s adjustment of status application was still pending, he could not leave the country to attend the family’s funerals in his home country without being barred from re-entry to the United States. We requested an expedited hearing due to these extraordinary circumstances. At that time we were told that the client’s labor certification application had been withdrawn and therefore would be denied. We made an argument to the officer regarding the Department of Labor’s interpretation of "approvable when filed.” The officer proceeded with the interview and our client’s application was approved. He now has a stamp in his passport that will allow him to travel to his home country for his family’s funerals and return to the United States without issue. Scott Bratton and Troy Murphy represented our client.

We had a case where our client was placed in removal proceedings but the Notice to Appear was sent to a nonexistent address. We filed a Motion to Reopen arguing that our client never received notice of the hearing. The case was reopened. Scott Bratton represented our client in this matter.

We were retained after our client's case had been administratively closed because he had filed an application to renew his TPS status. After reviewing his file, we discovered that he was eligible for relief under NACARA (Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act). We filed a Motion to Recalendar based upon our client's eligibility for NACARA. The case was rescheduled and at his Individual hearing, the Immigration Judge granted our client's application for relief under NACARA, allowing him to become a permanent resident after 15 years in the United States. Scott Bratton represented our client in this matter.

Our client approached us seeking assistance for his wife and child's H4 denial. The derivative beneficiaries were denied continuous stay in the US for alleged failure to timely file a change in their status. The first Motion to Reconsider was denied due to unsubstantial presentation of facts. On September 9, 2003, we filed a second Motion to Reconsider with the CIS highlighting the facts leading to the family's untimely filing of their application. We had argued that the delay in this family's change of status application was due to extraordinary circumstances beyond their control. On November 26, 2003 the CIS granted Our client's spouse and child their H4 classification.

Our client, then unnamed, was an abandoned and deserted baby girl at the gate of Overseas Chinese Hospital in the suburb of Fuzhou City, China. There she was discovered by her now adoptive mother, who along with her husband, adopted the baby girl in China and later came to the United States. The girl's date of birth (January 15, 1990) is the day her adoptive mother found her.

Today (Monday, November 17, 2003 ) at 8:20 am, the 13 year old student in Cleveland, Ohio, presented herself with her father, for her naturalization hearing in Cleveland. All her papers and documents were in order (a credit to the staff of Margaret W. Wong & Associates and especially to Larry Hadfield who conducted our office preparation).

The hearing officer in a short time after the hearing began declared our client's citizen application is being granted and she signed the naturalization certificate and stated "I do" after the hearing officer read the oath, with proud father looking on. Our client has beautiful penmanship and is a good student. Attorney Bob Marek represented our client in this matter.

Green card approved based on EB-2 position for PRC national hired by international company who had waited approximately 9 months more than the published processing times. When the immigrant visa numbers were available, our office filed a Writ of Mandamus in Federal District Court, for the Court to direct USCIS to adjudicate the I-485 applications for the client and his wife. While the Writ of Mandamus was dismissed due to the retrogression of immigrant visa numbers in October 2005, new fingerprints had already been scheduled based upon the filing of the Writ of Mandamus. The filing of a Writ of Mandamus is one of the few exceptions that will allow an expedite process for the security clearances, and apparently the security clearances were cleared expeditiously, since permanent residence was granted the same month the immigrant visa numbers became available.

We have obtained an H-1B extension visa for a computer professional from the Texas Service Center. The petition was receipted on June 6, 2000 and the approval was granted on July 5, 2000 without a request for additional evidence or information.

Another H-1B extension visa for a computer professional was approved by the Texas Service Center. Receipted on June 6, 2000 and approved on July 5, 2000, this petition did not receive a request for additional evidence or information.

An H-1B petition for a medical doctor that was receipted on June 9, 2000 was approved on July 6, 2000.

An H-1B petition filed for a medical doctor was approved. This petition was receipted at the Texas Service Center on June 6, 2000 and was approved on July 5, 2000. INS did not request additional evidence or information on this petition.

An H-1B extension receipted at the Texas Service Center on May 16, 2000 was approved on June 22, 2000. This application was filed on behalf of an SAP computer analyst. The entire family also had their H4 extensions approved on the same day. The whole family may now continue to reside in the United States together.

The Nebraska Service Center approved an H-1B extension, which was receipted on May 5, 2000, for a project engineer. The approval was issued on June 20, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center also has approved an H-1B extension for a medical doctor (fellow). This petition was receipted on May 5, 2000 and approved on June 21, 2000 without a request for additional evidence or information.

A professor with an Ohio university received an H-1B extension. This application was receipted on May 5, 2000 and approved on June 20, 2000.

Our office obtained an H-1B extension filed by a major industrial company on behalf of a professional manager. This petition was receipted on April 25, 2000 and the approval was granted on June 20, 2000.

A client came to us after having gone out of status. Another attorney had obtained an H-1B visa for him, but failed to file for his extension on time in spite of repeated calls to the attorney's office. The importance of remaining in legal status was not explained to this person. The client and his family were compelled to return to his home country. They left us immediately so as to avoid being out of status for 180 days and being subject to the "3 year bar", not knowing whether they would be able to return to the United States. Our office filed for his H-1B and asked the INS to cable the approval to the American Consulate overseas. The H-1B visa extension was approved on June 27, 2000. Our office is very happy for this wonderful family.

Our office has obtained an O-1 visa for a medical doctor working with a major hospital. The petition was receipted at the Nebraska Service Center on May 11, 2000 and the approval was granted on June 26, 2000. INS did not request additional evidence or information for this file.

An O-1 visa petition filed for a medical doctor and receipted at the Vermont Service Center on June 20, 2000 was approved on June 30, 2000. There was no request from INS for additional evidence or information.

Another O1 petition was successfully filed for a medical doctor. This petition was receipted June 22, 2000 at the Texas Service Center and the approval was granted on July 5, 2000 without a request for additional evidence or information.

Our office also obtained an O-1 visa for a mathematician and educator. The petition was filed by one of the most respected independent schools in the country. This petition was receipted on June 26, 2000 and was approved on June 30, 2000 without a request for additional information or evidence.

Our office obtained an O-1 visa for a Brazilian research scientist with a major Cleveland research hospital. This petition was receipted May 16, 2000 and approved on June 22, 2000.

We want to thank the Service Centers and INS District Offices for their hard work and fairness in their adjudications of benefits.

Our office recently obtained permanent residency for two adult daughters of American citizens at an INS District Office in North Carolina. The daughters sought family preference immigrant visas through their parent. The parent died and the visas were revoked. Our office convinced the INS office to reinstate the visas and successfully argued that the revocation would result in severe hardships to the daughters other American relatives.

Our office recently obtained an O-1, non-immigrant work visa at the Nebraska Service Center for a J-1 physician completing fellowship training. The physician had one article published in a prestigious journal, two articles in process of submission, and several abstracts and posters. The physician had practiced medicine for a number of years in a third-world country and was a member of several distinguished medical organizations.

Our office recently obtained an O-1, non-immigrant work visa at the Vermont Service Center for a computer-telecommunications professional who could not renew an H1-B visa because the alien had already worked 6 years on an H1-B visa in the United States. Our office demonstrated that the alien had been instrumental in launching several product lines with prior employers, had achieved some publicity within the profession, and commanded a high salary.

Our office recently obtained an alien of extraordinary ability, EB-11 immigrant visa petition with the Nebraska Service Center on behalf of a physician who completed their J-1 fellowship training a year ago. The physician had several articles and abstracts, strong letters of recommendation, and had presented research at national meetings.

Our office recently obtained an O-1, alien of extraordinary ability, non-immigrant work visa with the Vermont Service Center for an educator who completed her Ph.D. Thesis, several papers, and was writing several books. The alien was a member of an academic honor society and had engaged in a number of teaching activities involving minority and culturally disadvantaged children.

Our office recently obtained an O-1, alien of extraordinary ability, non-immigrant work visa with the Vermont Service Center for a J-1 physician who completed fellowship training. The physician had presented several posters at national and regional meetings, was board certified, and had strong letters of support.

Our office recently obtained an O-1, alien of extraordinary ability, non-immigrant work visa with the Texas Service Center for a J-1 physician who completed fellowship training. The physician had authored one article in a prestigious journal, had several articles under process of submission, and several abstracts and posters. The physician was a member of prestigious medical societies and had strong letters of support.

Our office recently obtained an O-1, alien of extraordinary ability, non-immigrant work visa with the Texas Service Center for an H1-B physician who could not renew the H1-B visa. The physician had authored a thesis, had presented work at several national conferences during the physician's fellowship training, and had strong letters of support for mentors and peers.

Our office successfully petitioned for an L2 extension on behalf of the spouse of an L1 Intracompany Transferee. Receipted at the Texas Service Center on April 28, 2000, the petition was granted on July 3, 2000. The couple is now able to remain together in the U.S.

An EB-13 filed for a multi-national executive at the Nebraska Service Center has been approved. The petition was receipted on December 20, 1999 and the approval was granted on June 30, 2000 without a request for additional evidence or information.

I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary. The application was receipted on September 22, 1997 and the approval was granted on November 24, 2000.

Our office has obtained another I-485 approval for adjustment as direct beneficiary from the Texas Service Center. This application was receipted on September 2, 1999 and was approved on November 27, 2000.

An additional I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on September 30, 1998 and was approved on November 22, 2000.

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-485 application for derivative adjustment. This application was receipted on September 2, 1999 and the approval was granted on November 27, 2000.

I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status

Our office has obtained an I-539 approval for an H-4 visa from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted at the Center on September 27, 2000 and was approved on November 27, 2000.

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an H-1B visa. The petition was receipted at the Center on September 27, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 27, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

Our office has obtained an I-140 National Interest Waiver approval from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted at the Center on April 18, 2000 and was approved on December 6, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-140 EB-11 petition. The petition was receipted on November 15, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 5, 2000.

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-140 National Interest Waiver petition. The petition was receipted on May 24, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 4, 2000.

I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status

We were retained to help our client apply for adjustment of status. After an interview in Garden City, New York, the adjustment of status application was granted. Scott Bratton handled the case.

The Vermont Service Center has approved an I-539 application for H-4 visas for the family of an H-1B visa holder. The application was receipted on September 19, 2000 and was approved on December 7, 2000.

Our office has obtained an I-539 approval for an H-4 visa for the spouse and child of an H-1B visa holder from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on October 16, 2000 and approved on December 2, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-539 application for an L-2 visa for the spouse and children of an L-1A visa holder. The application was receipted on November 7, 2000 and was approved on November 27, 2000.

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-539 application for an O-3 visa for the spouse of an O-1 visa holder. The application was receipted on November 15, 2000 and was approved on November 30, 2000.

An additional I-539 application for L-2 visas for the spouse and child of an L-1A visa holder have been approved by the Texas Service Center. The application was receipted on September 1, 2000 and was approved on November 29, 2000.

I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-485 application for derivative adjustment. The application was receipted on August 12, 1999 and the approval was granted on November 30, 2000.

An I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on June 24, 1999 and was approved on December 5, 2000.

An additional I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This application was receipted on September 13, 1999 and was approved on December 6, 2000.

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary. The application was receipted on December 2, 1999 and the approval was granted on December 7, 2000.

An I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved by the Texas Service Center. This application was receipted on December 2, 1999 and was approved on December 7, 2000.

Another I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved by the Texas Service Center. The application was receipted on December 2, 1999 and was approved on December 7, 2000.

Our office has obtained an approval of an additional I-485 application for derivative adjustment from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on August 12, 1999 and was approved on December 7, 2000.

Again by the Nebraska Service Center, an I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved. The application was receipted on October 7, 1999 and approval was granted on December 6, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an additional I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary. The application was receipted on August 12, 1999 and was approved on November 30, 2000.

An I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on September 10, 1999 and the approval was granted on November 29, 2000.

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

Our office has obtained an I-129 approval of an H-1B visa from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on October 20, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 7, 2000.

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an H-1B visa. The petition was receipted at the Center on September 29, 2000 and was approved on December 4, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an H-1B visa. This petition was receipted on October 16, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 2, 2000.

An additional I-129 petition for an H-1B visa has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on October 13, 2000 and was approved on November 30, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an L-1A visa. The petition was receipted at the Center on November 7, 2000 and was approved on November 27, 2000.

Another I-129 petition for an H-1B visa has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on September 1, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 29, 2000.

Our office has obtained an I-129 approval for an L-1A visa from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on September 20, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 29, 2000.

ETA 750 Certification

The U.S. Department of Labor has granted ETA 750 certification to an Ohio Project Engineer. The application was accepted for processing on March 29, 2000 and certification was granted on November 7, 2000.

Our office has obtained ETA 750 certification for an Ohio Template Maker. The application was accepted for processing on March 14, 2000 and certification was granted on November 7, 2000.

I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status

Our office has obtained an I-485 approval for adjustment as direct beneficiary from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted at the Center on October 7, 1999 and was approved on December 6, 2000.

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

The Vermont Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an H-1B visa. The petition was receipted on September 19, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 7, 2000.

Our office has obtained an I-129 approval for an H-1B visa from the Nebraska Service Center. This petition was receipted on October 13, 2000 and was approved on December 7, 2000.

An additional I-129 petition has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This petition was receipted at the Center on October 19, 2000 and was approved on December 8, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved another I-129 petition for an H-1B visa. The petition was receipted on October 23, 2000 and was approved on December 8, 2000.

I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status

The Vermont Service Center has approved an I-539 application for an H-4 visa for the spouse and child of an H-1B visa holder. The application was receipted on September 19, 2000 and was approved on December 7, 2000.

An I-539 application for an H-4 visa for the spouse and child of an H-1B visa holder has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on October 19, 2000 and was approved on December 8, 2000.

I-129F Petition for Fiancé(e)

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-129F petition for a fiancé visa. The application was receipted at the Center on August 21, 2000 and was approved on December 8, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

Our office has obtained an I-140 EB-11 approval from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on July 10, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 8, 2000.

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

Our office has obtained an I-129 approval for an H-1B visa from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted at the Center on October 10, 2000 and was approved on December 13, 2000.

An additional I-129 petition for an H-1B visa has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This petition was receipted on October 23, 2000 and was approved on December 13, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

Our office has obtained an I-140 EB-11 approval from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on June 9, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 12, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-140 EB-12 petition. The petition was receipted on November 17, 2000 and was approved on December 12, 2000.

I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status

The California Service Center has approved an I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary. The application was receipted on September 15, 1999 and was approved on December 11, 2000.

An I-485 application for derivative adjustment has also been approved by the California Service Center. The application was receipted on September 15, 1999 and was approved on December 11, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary. The application was receipted on November 9, 1998 and the approval was granted on December 12, 2000.

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary. The application was receipted on March 7, 2000 and was approved on December 11, 2000.

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

The Vermont Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an O-1 visa. The petition was receipted at the Center on September 19, 2000 and was approved on December 12, 2000.

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an H-1B visa. The petition was receipted on October 2, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 12, 2000.

Our office has obtained an I-129 approval for an O-1 visa from the Vermont Service Center. The petition was receipted on November 9, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 13, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

Our office has obtained an I-140 Labor Certification approval from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on November 24, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 13, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an additional I-140 Labor Certification petition. This petition was receipted at the Center on November 21, 2000 and was approved on December 13, 2000.

An I-140 EB-11 petition has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on July 22, 1999 and the approval was granted on December 13, 2000.

An I-140 EB-12 petition has also been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This petition was receipted on November 22, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 14, 2000.

An additional I-140 EB-11 petition has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted at the Center on June 9, 2000 and was approved on December 12, 2000.

I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status

Our office has received an I-485 approval for derivative adjustment from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted at the Center on September 20, 1999 and was approved on December 13, 2000.

An additional I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on August 20, 1999 and was approved on December 14, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary. This application was receipted on September 20, 1999 and was approved on December 13, 2000.

I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-539 application for H-4 visas for the spouse and child of an H-1B visa holder. The application was receipted on October 2, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 12, 2000.

I-130 Immigrant Petition for Relative, Fiancé(e), or Orphan

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-130 petition for the parent of a U.S. citizen. The petition was receipted at the Center on June 30, 2000 and was approved on December 15, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

Our office has obtained an I-140 EB-11 approval from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on July 22, 1999 and the approval was granted on December 13, 2000.

RIR Labor Certification

Three Labor Certification applications for an Ohio engineering and technical service were approved very quickly by the U.S. Department of Labor. Currently, this type of application carries a six-month processing time. All three applications were accepted for processing on September 8, 2000. The U.S. Department of Labor granted ETA 750 certification on November 19, 2000. Congratulations to our Labor Certification Department!

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an H-1B visa. The petition was receipted at the Center on October 2, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 15, 2000.

Our office has obtained an I-129 approval for an H-1B visa from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on October 30, 2000 and was approved on December 15, 2000.

An additional I-129 petition for an H-1B visa has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on November 7, 2000 and was approved on December 18, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved another I-129 petition for an H-1B visa. This petition was receipted on October 18, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 19, 2000.

Another I-129 petition for an H-1B visa has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted at the Center on April 14, 2000 and was approved on December 18, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

Our office has obtained an I-140 Labor Certification approval from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on November 15, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 14, 2000.

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-140 Labor Certification petition. This petition was receipted at the Center on August 24, 2000 and was approved on December 19, 2000.

An additional I-140 Labor Certification petition has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This petition was receipted on November 27, 2000 and was approved on December 18, 2000.

The Vermont Service Center has approved an I-140 EB-12 petition. The petition was receipted at the Center on October 22, 1999 and the approval was granted on December 19, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved another I-140 Labor Certification petition. The petition was receipted at the Center on November 27, 2000 and was approved on December 20, 2000.

I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status

Our office has obtained an I-539 approval for a B-2 visa extension from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted at the Center on September 29, 2000 and the approval was granted on December 19, 2000.

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-539 application for an H-4 visa for the spouse and children of an H-1B visa holder. The application was receipted on October 2, 2000 and was approved on December 15, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-539 application for an L-2 visa for the spouse and child of an L-1 visa holder. The application was receipted on August 7, 2000 and was approved on December 18, 2000.

I-130 Immigrant Petition for Relative, Fiancé(e), or Orphan

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-130 petition for the minor unmarried child of a United States citizen. The petition was receipted on July 7, 2000 and was approved on December 20, 2000.

I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status

Our office has obtained an I-485 approval for adjustment as direct beneficiary from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on September 17, 1999 and was approved on December 20, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center also has approved an I-485 application for derivative adjustment. The application was receipted on September 24, 1999 and the approval was granted on December 18, 2000.

An additional I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on November 19, 1998 and was approved on December 19, 2000.

Our office has obtained another I-485 approval for adjustment as direct beneficiary from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on November 19, 1998 and was approved on December 19, 2000.

Another I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This application was receipted at the Center on November 19, 1998 and was approved on December 19, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved another I-485 application for derivative adjustment. The application was receipted on September 13, 1999 and the approval was granted on December 19, 2000.

An I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted at the Center on September 13, 1999 and was approved on December 19, 2000.

An additional I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This application was receipted on September 24, 1999 and was approved on December 18, 2000.

Our office has obtained another I-485 approval for adjustment as direct beneficiary from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on September 24, 1999 and was approved on December 18, 2000.

ETA 750 Certification

The U.S. Department of Labor has granted ETA 750 certification to an Ohio Internist. The application was accepted for processing on July 31, 2000 and certification was granted on November 28, 2000.

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

The Nebraska Service Center has granted an I-129 petition for an H-1B visa. This petition was receipted at the Center on September 21, 2000 and was approved on November 2, 2000.

Another I-129 petition for an H-1B visa has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on April 25, 2000 and the approval was granted on October 31, 2000.

An I-129 petition for an H-1B visa that was receipted at the Nebraska Service Center on March 1, 2000 has been approved. The approval was granted on November 1, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved another I-129 petition for an H-1B visa. The petition was receipted at the Center on March 16, 2000 and was approved on October 31, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

An I-140 petition for National Interest Waiver has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This petition was receipted on December 22, 1999 and the approval was granted on November 1, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center also has approved an I-140 petition for EB-11 that was receipted on September 26, 2000. The approval was granted on October 30, 2000.

Our office has obtained an approval for an I-140 petition filed with the Nebraska Service Center for Labor Certification. The petition was receipted on October 10, 2000 and was approved on November 2, 2000.

An additional I-140 petition for National Interest Waiver has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on December 8, 1999 and was approved on November 1, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-140 petition for Labor Certification. The petition was receipted on October 17, 2000 and the approval was granted on October 31, 2000.

Again by the Nebraska Service Center, an I-140 petition for Labor Certification has been approved. The petition was receipted on September 11, 2000 and the approval was granted on October 30, 2000.

I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status

The Texas Service Center has granted adjustment to permanent resident to the direct beneficiary of an application receipted at the Center on October 27, 1999. The approval was granted on October 31, 2000.

Another I-485 adjustment as direct beneficiary to permanent resident status has been approved by the Texas Service Center. This application was receipted on October 27, 1999 and was approved on October 31, 2000.

I-130 Immigrant Petition for Relative, Fiance(e), or Orphan

Our office has obtained an I-130 approval for two minor, unmarried children of a United States citizen from the Nebraska Service Center. The petitions were receipted on June 13, 2000 and were approved on November 1, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved the I-130 petitions for another two minor, unmarried children of a United States citizen. These petitions were receipted at the Center on May 22, 2000 and were approved on November 1, 2000.

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an O-1 Visa. The petition was receipted at the Center on September 28, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 2, 2000.

ETA 750 Employment Certification:

The U.S. Department of Labor has granted ETA 750 certification to a Scientific Helper in Ohio. The application was accepted for processing on November 12, 1999 and certification was granted on October 23, 2000. Another ETA 750 certification has been granted by the U.S. Department of Labor. This application for a New York Account Executive was accepted for processing on July 31, 2000. Certification was granted on October 28, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-140 petition for Labor Certification filed by our office. The petition was receipted at the Center on August 28, 2000 and was approved on November 6, 2000.

Our office also has obtained an approval from the Nebraska Service Center for an I-140 EB-11 petition. The petition was receipted on February 22, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 6, 2000.

An additional I-140 petition for EB-11 has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This petition was receipted on January 4, 2000 and was approved on November 3, 2000.

An I-140 petition for EB-11 was approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted at the Center on February 23, 2000 and was approved on November 3, 2000.

Our office has obtained an approval for an I-140 Labor Certification petition filed with the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on October 6, 2000 and was approved on November 3, 2000.

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an H-1B visa. The petition was receipted on December 30, 1999 and the approval was granted on November 6, 2000.

Our office has received an additional I-129 approval for an H-1B visa. This petition was receipted at the Nebraska Service Center on September 13, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 3, 2000.

An additional I-129 petition for H-1B visa has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on September 13, 2000 and was approved on November 3, 2000.

I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-539 application to extend the three H-4 visas of the family of an H-1B visa holder. The application was receipted on September 13, 2000 and was approved November 3, 2000.

I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status

Our office has obtained an approval for I-485 derivative adjustment from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted at the Center on August 10, 1998 and approval was granted on November 3, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary. The application was receipted on August 10, 1998 and the approval was granted on November 3, 2000.

An additional I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This application was receipted on August 10, 1998 and was approved on November 3, 2000.

Again by the Nebraska Service Center, an I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved. The application was receipted at the Center on August 10, 1998 and was approved on November 3, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an additional I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary. This application was receipted on September 13, 1999 and the approval was granted on November 3, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

Our office has obtained an I-140 Labor Certification approval from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on October 20, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 7, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-140 Labor Certification petition. The petition was receipted on October 13, 2000 and was approved on November 7, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center also has approved an I-140 EB-11 petition receipted on October 16, 2000. The approval was granted on November 7, 2000.

An additional I-140 EB-11 petition has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This petition was receipted on August 15, 2000 and was approved on November 6, 2000.

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

The Vermont Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an L-1B visa. The petition was receipted at the Center on October 30, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 3, 2000.

Our office has obtained an I-129 approval for an L-1A visa from the Nebraska Service Center. This petition was receipted on October 19, 2000 and was approved on November 6, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an O-1 visa. The petition was receipted on May 17, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 7, 2000.

An I-129 petition for an H-1B visa also has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on July 26, 2000 and was approved on November 6, 2000.

I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-485 application for derivative adjustment. The application was receipted at the Center on December 27, 1999 and approval was granted on November 6, 2000.

The Texas Service Center also has approved an I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary. This application was receipted on December 27, 1999 and was approved on November 6, 2000.

The California Service Center has approved an I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary. The application was receipted on June 3, 2000 and was approved on November 6, 2000.

Our office also has obtained an approval for an I-485 application for derivative adjustment from the California Service Center. This application was receipted on June 3, 2000 and was approved on November 6, 2000.

An additional I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved by the California Service Center. The application was receipted on June 3, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 6, 2000.

I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status

Our office has obtained an I-539 approval for L-2 visas for the spouse and children of an L-1A visa holder from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on October 19, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 6, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-539 application for H-4 visas for the spouse and child of an H-1B visa holder. The application was receipted on July 26, 2000 and was approved on November 6, 2000.

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

Our office has obtained an I-129 approval for a TN1 visa from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted at the Center on October 19, 2000 and was approved on November 7, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an H-1B visa. The petition was receipted on September 26, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 7, 2000.

I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status

The California Service Center has approved an I-485 application for derivative adjustment. The application was receipted on June 3, 2000 and was approved on November 6, 2000.

I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-539 application for an F-1 visa. The application was receipted on July 31, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 7, 2000.

Our office also has obtained an approval for an I-539 application for a TD visa. The application was receipted on August 22, 2000 and was approved on November 8, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

Our office has obtained an I-140 Labor Certification approval from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on September 26, 2000 and was approved on November 7, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-140 EB-11 petition. The petition was receipted at the Center on October 18, 2000 and was approved on November 7, 2000.

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

Our office has obtained an I-129 approval for an L-1B visa from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on October 10, 2000 and was approved on November 7, 2000.

I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status

The Nebraska Service Center has approved the I-539 application for L-2 visas for the spouse and children of an L-1B visa holder. The application was receipted on October 10, 2000 and approved on November 7, 2000.

Our office also has obtained an I-539 approval for a B-2 visa from the Nebraska Service Center. This application was receipted on June 16, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 7, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-140 Labor Certification petition. The petition was receipted at the Center on July 25, 2000 and was approved on November 7, 2000.

I-130 Immigrant Petition for Relative, Fiance(e), or Orphan

The Nebraska Service Center has approved the I-130 petition of a minor unmarried child of a U.S. citizen. The petition was receipted on June 2, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 7, 2000.

I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status

Our office has obtained an I-539 approval for an F-1 visa from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted at the Center on July 31, 2000 and was approved on November 7, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center also has approved an I-539 application for a TD visa. This application was receipted on August 22, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 8, 2000.

An I-539 application for L2 visas for the family of an L-1 visa holder has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on October 10, 2000 and was approved on November 7, 2000.

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an O-1 visa. The petition was receipted on October 30, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 7, 2000.

An I-129 petition for an H-1B visa has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This petition was receipted on September 18, 2000 and was approved on November 9, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

An I-140 Labor Certification petition has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This petition was receipted at the Center on October 13, 2000 and was approved on November 9, 2000.

Our office has obtained an I-140 EB-11 approval from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on October 16, 2000 and was approved on November 7, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved another I-140 EB-11 petition. This petition was receipted on October 18, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 7, 2000.

I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status

Our office has obtained an approval of an I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on June 24, 1999 and was approved on November 13, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center also has approved an I-485 application for derivative adjustment. The application was receipted at the Center on June 24, 2000 and was approved on November 13, 2000.

Another I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on September 13, 1999 and the approval was granted on November 13, 2000.

An additional I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on September 13, 1999 and was approved on November 13, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-140 Labor Certification petition. The petition was receipted at the Center on October 25, 2000 and was approved on November 13, 2000.

The Vermont Service Center has approved an I-140 National Interest Waiver petition. The petition was receipted on August 6, 1999 and the approval was granted on November 9, 2000.

Another I-140 Labor Certification petition has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This petition was receipted on October 17, 2000 and was approved on November 14, 2000.

An I-140 EB-11 petition has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on February 23, 2000 and was approved on November 3, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an additional I-140 Labor Certification petition. The petition was receipted on October 26, 2000 and was approved on November 14, 2000.

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

Our office has obtained an I-129 approval for an O-1 visa from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on November 2, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 13, 2000.

The Vermont Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an L-1B visa. The petition was receipted on October 25, 2000 and was approved on November 13, 2000.

An I-129 petition for an O-1 visa has been approved by the Vermont Service Center. This petition was receipted on November 3, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 13, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an H-1B visa. The petition was receipted on February 24, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 14, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-140 EB-11 petition. The petition was receipted at the Center on May 11, 2000 and was approved on November 15, 2000.

The California Service Center has approved an I-140 Labor Certification petition. The petition was receipted on October 17, 2000 and was approved on November 15, 2000.

Our office has obtained an I-140 EB-11 approval from the California Service Center. The petition was receipted on July 8, 1999 and the approval was granted on November 16, 2000.

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an H-1B visa. The petition was receipted at the Center on September 12, 2000 and was approved on November 20, 2000.

The Vermont Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an L-1B visa. This petition was receipted on October 25, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 16, 2000.

Our office has obtained an I-129 approval for an H-1B visa from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted on September 13, 2000 and was approved on November 16, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for an H-1B visa. The petition was receipted on September 14, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 16, 2000.

I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status

Our office has obtained an approval of an I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on September 14, 1999 and was approved on November 20, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center also has approved an I-485 application for derivative adjustment. This application was receipted on September 14, 1999 and was approved on November 20, 2000.

An additional I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted at the Center on October 6, 1999 and was approved on November 20, 2000.

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary. The application was receipted on June 8, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 21, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-485 application for derivative adjustment. The application was receipted on October 6, 1999 and the approval was granted on November 20, 2000.

Another I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This application was receipted on October 6, 1999 and was approved on November 20, 2000.

Our office has obtained an additional I-485 approval for adjustment as direct beneficiary from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on September 29, 1999 and was approved on November 16, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-485 application for derivative adjustment. The application was receipted on October 26, 1998 and the approval was granted on November 16, 2000.

An additional I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on September 10, 1999 and was approved on November 15, 2000.

I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status

The Nebraska Service Center has granted an I-539 approval for an H-4 visa. The application was receipted at the Center on September 13, 2000 and was approved on November 16, 2000.

Following a Motion to Reopen and Reconsider before the Commissioner, the Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-539 application for an F-1 visa. The original application was receipted at the Center on May 12, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 16, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-140 Labor Certification petition. The petition was receipted on November 1, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 16, 2000.

I-612 Application to Waive Foreign Residence Requirements

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-612 application for a J-1 visa waiver. The application was receipted at the Center on November 8, 2000 and was approved on November 20, 2000.

ETA750 Employment Certification

The U.S. Department of Labor has granted ETA 750 certification to an Ohio production superintendent. The application was accepted for processing on February 3, 1999 and certification was granted on November 1, 2000.

An Ohio Vice President has also received ETA 750 certification from the U.S. Department of Labor. The application was accepted for processing on June 26, 2000 and certification was granted on November 1, 2000.

Our office also has obtained ETA 750 certification from the U.S. Department of Labor for a Florida foreign food specialty cook. This application was accepted for processing on June 29, 2000 and certification was granted on November 8, 2000.

I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status

Our office has obtained an I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary from the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on October 6, 1999 and was approved on November 20, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-485 application for derivative adjustment. The application was receipted on September 14, 1999 and the approval was granted on November 20, 2000.

An additional I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on October 18, 1999 and was approved on November 20, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved another I-485 application for derivative adjustment. This application was receipted on October 6, 1999 and the approval was granted on November 20, 2000.

Another I-485 application for derivative adjustment has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on October 18, 1999 and was approved on November 20, 2000.

I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-129 petition for a TN1 visa. The petition was receipted at the Center on August 11, 2000 and was approved on November 17, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-140 EB-11 petition. This petition was receipted on May 11, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 15, 2000.

I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status

The Texas Service Center has approved an I-485 application for derivative adjustment. The application was receipted on June 8, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 21, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary. The application was receipted on September 16, 1999 and was approved on November 22, 2000.

An additional I-485 application for adjustment as direct beneficiary has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. The application was receipted on September 14, 1999 and was approved on November 22, 2000.

An I-485 application for derivative adjustment also has been approved by the Nebraska Service Center. This application was receipted at the Center on September 16, 1999 and was approved on November 22, 2000.

I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

Our office has obtained an I-140 EB-11 petition from the Nebraska Service Center. The petition was receipted at the Center on November 1, 2000 and was approved on November 21, 2000.

The Nebraska Service Center has approved an I-140 Labor Certification petition. This petition was receipted on August 21, 2000 and the approval was granted on November 21, 2000.

ETA 750 Certification

The U.S. Department of Labor has granted ETA 750 certification to a Florida Electronics Products and Systems Sales Engineer. The application was accepted for processing on August 31, 1998 and certification was granted on November 20, 2000.