Margaret W. Wong & Associates - Immigration Lawyers
Tending to all your immigration needs

Success Stories: Others Page 1

Is yours next?

FIRM OVERVIEW

Margaret W. Wong & Associates LLC is a full-service immigration law practice that provides legal advice and representation to people and companies in the United States. The firm has over 80 years of combined legal experience among its attorneys and serves its clients from offices in Cleveland, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Nashville, Columbus, Minneapolis, and Raleigh. Contact us here to schedule a consultation to discuss your needs. 

Others Page One (Click One To View The Story):
Thriving Chinese Student
Young Chinese Man Support Family
Aggravated Felon Adjustment
Appeal Motion to Reopen
Conviction Against Torture
Fear of Accusations
Asylum and GC
Sponsorship from Employer (12)
Failing to Appear at Hearing
Cancellation of Removal (5)
One Child Policy Asylum (3)
Final Deportation to GC
E Visa (4)
Strong I-601 Saves GC
Daughters Petitioning (3)
Son Petitions Father
Proving Marriage Validity
Joint Motion to Reopen
Lawyer Must be Good Enough
Reopening GC Cases
Airport Detention Now GC
Immigrant Visas for Children
Naturalization Despite Past Crime
Helping Clients Out of Detention
Bringing Wife/Daughter to US
Deferred Action for Client
I-730 With Asylum (2)
Business Reconstruction for Visa
Doctor Gets Green Card
J-1 Visa to Permanent Resident
J-1/J-2 Transition to F-1 (3)
Malaysian Scholar Extreme Hardship
Doctor from Fuji Finalize Process
10-Year Green Card
Good Preparation to Naturalization
Filing Two I-485
Employment Based Avenue to US
Fake Visa Holder Now GC
Clarifying LPR (2)
Tanzanian Marry US Citizen
Chinese Woman Waiver With Husband
Asian Man GC After 2 Deportations
Companies Hiring Canadians (3)
Filipino Brings Wife to US
Hiring Non-Immigrant Workers (6)
Research Status of Green Card
Client File Permanent Employment
Asylum for Chinese National
Two I-130 for Family
Proving Entry Into the US
Chinese Family Petitions for GCs (5)
Renewing 10 Year GC
25 Years Hard Work
Indian Client's Case Reopened
B-2 Visitor Visa Extension
Adam Walsh Act: I-130
Venezuelan Family Work Permits
Colombian Victim of Abuse by USC
LPR for Chinese Husband and Wife
Denied Withholding of Removal
Indian Nationals LPRs (2)
Natural Disasters: TPS
Pakistani With Criminal Conviction
German Client With L Visas (2)
Motion to Stay Granted
Eliminate Final Order of Deportation
Uzbekistan Client Renews B-2
Indian Couple New Year GCs
Process Chinese Client's GC
Employment Authorization/10 Year
Chinese Client Married in Jail
Jamaican Grandfathered
Zimbabwean Marriage to USC
Jordanian Physician USMLE Success
Macedonian Waiting for GC
Yemen National Work Authorization
Motion to Reopen Mexican Case
Asylum/LPR for Mexican Client
Bosnian Files for Asylum
Canadian 7 Year Old
Chinese Citizen Released From Jail
Corporate Client TN Visa
Work Permit Protects Chinese Couple
CEO Software Company L-1B Visa
T Visas for Victims of Human Trafficking (2)
Hardship Waiver With Mumbai Consulate
Mexican Removal Rescinded
Malaysian Removal Rescinded
Removal Order to Citizenship
Chinese Chef Immigration Fraud
Lebanese Work Authorization
Motion to Reconsider Case
Non-Immigrant Visa Waiver
Immigrant Investor I-526
Mexican National Employment
War for Status with BIA and Circuit Court
I-131 for Bangladeshi
Criminal Conviction for Canadian Youth
Overstay Voluntary Departure
Detained Four Years
Client Abused by LPR
Portuguese LPR Renews GC
Renew GC Despite Criminal Record
Father Misses 3rd Child's Birth
Federal Law Suit Denying Citizenship
Fake Passport for Eligibility
Case Reopened With Legal Entry
I-140 Interview Out of the Country
Canadian National Marries USC
Work and Order of Supervision
"Nunc Pro Tunc"
Client Detained for One Year
ICE Erroneous Bond
Mauritanian Client Fast Approval
Daughter Kidnapped by Abusive Husband
USC Petitions for Guangzhou Wife
2003 Asylum and Work Renewal
Canadian Accountant Visa to Work
Team Works to get Chinese out of Jail
Refile 1-130
Continued Extension for Stay of Removal
Detained Granted Time to Adjudicate
Aged out Minor
I-360 Religious Worker/Buddhist Monk
Family Planning Laws in China- Asylum
Entered as Minor Now GC
USCIS Mistake Lead to Work Authorization
Jaw Surgery B-2 Visa Extension
I-131 to Travel Abroad
Chilean Electrical Engineer GC
Bonded to Our Client
Reopened Case After Missed Hearing
I-130 Instead of I-589
Israeli Pianist Work Authorization
I-130 For Children After USCIS Error
Sri Lankan Client Status Changed
Advanced Parole for UK Family
H-1B Visa to GC (3)
K Visa for Vietnamese Couple
N-336 Appeal Naturalization
Motion to Vacate Petty Theft
Family of Three I-485 Journey
TN Visa for Canadian Technologist
Hotel Business Owner I-140
Canadian Physician Advanced Parole
V Visa for Guangzhou Client
Hardship Waiver for Malaysian Client
Daughter Over 21 Treated as Child
Adjustment of Status for Son and Parents
Travel Documents for Funeral
Motion to Reconsider H4 Denial
Abandoned Girl Now USC
Mandamus Expedites LPR Process
Thai I-129F Visa for Fiancee
Moroccan Woman's Son B-2
East Indian National Graduate GC

Success Stories by Nationality: 

Nigerian success stories (five)

1) Asylum: A Nigerian National was fearful to return to his home country.   He was out of status in the United States and several years had passed since his last entry.  He came to Margaret W. Wong & Associates asking how he could remain in the United States and not return.  The firm explained to him the asylum process and so he wanted the firm to pursue this relief for him.  Staff members and attorneys at the firm worked hard in preparing an asylum application.  Additionally, when his interview came for asylum before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, he was prepared for all the questions that might be asked about his fear.  Arguments were provided by his attorney at the interview to explain why it took him some time to file for asylum.  A few months after, the Nigerian National received a decision granting his asylum claim.  He was extremely happy because he could remain in the United States without fearing to return to Nigeria.  The attorneys and staff at Margaret W. Wong & Associates were happy to help someone who truly feared returning to their home country.

2) Marriage to USC: 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.

3) I-765: 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. 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.

4) F-1 Student Visa: 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.

5) Religious Worker: 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. (Back to Top)

Egyptian success stories (three)

1) I-140/Green Card: A Radiologist from Egypt retained our firm to file an I-140 application for a National Interest Waiver Physician, which would allow him and his family to adjust status and receive a green card after he completed five years of medical service in the United States. We filed his application, which was approved, and continued to advise our client throughout his five years of employment at a local hospital. After this requirement was met, we submitted evidence of his medical service to USCIS and pushed them to approve the green cards for our client and his family. Our clients received their green cards shortly about submitting this final evidence.

2) I-140/I-485On 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.

3) Asylum: 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.(Back to Top)

Filipino success stories Including a state 30 waiver (seven)

1) B Visa: An owner of a home residence in northeast Ohio contacted us to renew his Household Managers B-1 visa and her EAD. This individual already has had numerous B-1 extensions. The alien, who is from the Philippines, has been a vital asset to the family. On 10/16/2012 we filed the B-1 extension to USCIS. USCIS then approved the B-1 extension without RFE on 12/31/2012. The worker and the home owner were very pleased of the success of this matter.

2) Work Authorization: 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.

3) K Visa: 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.

4) B Visa: 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.

5) State 30 Waiver: In April of 2008 a Filipino physician retained us to work on his J- waiver. We filed for the State 30 waiver with the Pennsylvania Department of Health on July 9, 2008, since it was an underserved location in need of physicians. We received the approval on August 27, 2008. He is now able to file for his H-1B visa. He will need to work for 3 years for the employer in this underserved location

6) Asylum: 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.

7) I-131: We had a Filipino 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.(Back to Top)

japanese success stories (five)

1) I-140: 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.

2) Green Card Renewal: A businessman from Japan has been a permanent resident in the United States since 1998. His green card (Form I-551) will expire in 2009. Six months before the expiration date, the businessman approached us to renew his green card. He informed us that he would be traveling to Japan on business at the end of September, and wanted to complete the application and fingerprint appointment before his departure. We filed Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card, in the beginning of September with an expedite request to schedule the required biometrics appointment. We received the biometrics appointment notice on September 15, for an appointment scheduled for three days before the businessman's departure date. He was also concerned that he would have to turn in his green card at the biometrics appointment, and would not have evidence of his permanent resident status during his trip. We contacted the Application Support Center (ASC) where the biometrics appointment was scheduled, and were notified that Form I-551 cards are not confiscated - upon expiration the card would no longer be valid. The businessman went to get fingerprinted, and flew to Japan later that week. We received his approval notice in the mail less than three months later.

3) I-131: Some years ago we took the case of a Japanese client who made a successful career in USA. By then his daughter was just a little girl, and she obtained her green card together with the rest of the family. Years later we were asked to do I-131 (Reentry permit) for the daughter. Turns out she is now a brilliant executive in an international company and was temporarily assigned to work in Tokyo. In July 24 we filed for her reentry permit, as she would need to be outside USA for long periods, but she did not want to lose her green card. Problem is she was working in Tokyo and we needed to let her know in advance when she would have her fingerprint appointment, and see if she could travel on time. She was scheduled for August 6 2008, but it was too soon. We requested rescheduling for the first days of September, since she would be in USA by then. USCIS was kind to reschedule her fingerprints for September 2, problem is, they sent the notice to a different zip code by mistake. By the time we received it, it was already September 9, and she was back in Japan. We requested another rescheduling, since we did not receive the previous notice on time, and asked them to please reschedule for anytime after November 4, since she would be traveling to USA for a conference. We appreciated that USCIS scheduled the fingerprints for November 6, which was perfect, and she was able to go. Finally in December 2008 we received her new reentry permit

4) L Visa: 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.

5) L Visa: Here at Margaret W. Wong & Associates, we specialize in all matters pertaining to immigration, with cliental scattered across a broad spectrum pertaining to not only race or ethnicity, but socioeconomic status as well. One of our Japanese clients was promoted to a top-executive position within his company. This new position required him and his wife to move to the U.S., a decision the couple were hesitant, but willing to make for the sake of the husband's career. In order to work in the U.S., they needed to apply for a L-1A Visa. Through the close personal relationship we developed with our clients, coupled with our collective collaboration, we were able to secure a visa for the couple, as well as the possibility of the extending their visa until the time comes for them to apply for a green card.(Back to Top)

Kenyan success stories (Four)

1) Motion to Reopen: We received a call from a Kenyan man who had been arrested and told he would be deported immediately. Within 24-hours, we notified Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") that we were representing him, and we filed a Motion to Reopen with the Immigration Court. This froze his deportation. Ten weeks later, ICE released him. His Motion to Reopen is waiting for the Court's decision. When the Court reopens his case, he will be able to apply for a green card based on his wife's citizenship.

2) I-601 Waiver: 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.

3) 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.

4) B Visa: 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.(Back to Top)

Taiwanese success stories (two)

1) Green Card: 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.

2) I-129: A Taiwanese National worked for a company in his native country as a high level manager. The company was expanding and so it wanted to move this individual with his expertise to the United States. The employer sought the help of Margaret W. Wong & Associates to help them accomplish this goal. The attorneys and staff members of the firm filed an I-129, Petition for Non-immigrant Worker, as an L-1A or Intra-Company Transferee as a Manager. The L-1A visa allows individuals like the Taiwanese National to come to the United States and work for the subsidiary of his parent company in a managerial capacity. Soon after the petition was filed, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved the petition. Now, the Native of Taiwan is happily working for his company and helping them expand in a new market here in the United States.(Back to Top)

ukrainian success stories (three)

1) I-140/I-485: A Ukrainian national had an approved I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker; however he wanted to know the next step in the process of obtaining Permanent Residency. He contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates because of the years of experience the firm has in immigration matters. The lawyers and staff members at the firm filed Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, on the individual's behalf. The process went smoothly and the native of Ukraine was very pleased about that. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved his I-485 application and now he is a permanent resident in the United States. The attorneys and staff at Margaret W. Wong & Associates were glad to help one of their clients become a lawful permanent resident of this great country. Another member in the long list of clients helped by the firm.

2) Citizenship: 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.

3) Expedited FOIA: We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for a client from Ukraine who would soon be entering deportation proceedings. We received his Notice to Appear (NTA) shortly after the original FOIA request was filed, and sent a new letter to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) with a copy of the NTA so that our request would be expedited via Track 3 placement. When a FOIA request is placed in Track 3, it is because the alien has an upcoming court date and the documents must be received before the hearing. After filing a Track 3 request for this alien, USCIS responded that it would not be granted. We filed yet another request, this time including a recently received hearing notice. USCIS called our office a few days later to confirm information regarding the client and assured us that the FOIA documents would be sent out as soon as possible. We received the documents within a week, and were able to review them for important information in time for the hearing.(Back to Top)

russian success stories (four)

1) Marrying USC: A Russian National met a young man who she fell in love with. After some time as boyfriend and girlfriend, the young man proposed to her. The young man was a United States Citizen and his new wife was in the United States on a temporary visa. The young man contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates to help him get his wife a Green Card so they could remain together as husband and wife. The attorneys and staff members at the firm filed Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, alongside Form I-485, Application for Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved their application and now the couple is living happily together in the United States with no fear of them being separated. Margaret W. Wong & Associates were just happy to be part of such a great story

2) Work Authorization: A Russian National retained our office for a Refugee case in December 2011. We filed forms I-730, I-485 and I-765 for him and two other family members. After a month of filing the application for employment authorization our client and his family received their approvals and authorization cards to work legally in the United States. They are very happy and optimistic that they will get the same result for their green card applications.

3) B-2 Visa: 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.

4) FOIA/Motion to Reopen: 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.(Back to Top)

brazilian success stories (three)

1) Gay Brazilian Asylum: A client from Brazil retained our firm in order to help him get lawful status in the United States. Our client left his country based on the discrimination he faced as a gay man. He came to the United States illegally by crossing the U.S./Mexican border. He was given a Notice To Appear in Immigration Court but because the document was read to him in Spanish and not Portuguese, he never went to court and was thus issued an In Absentia Order of Deportation. After months of preparation, Attorney Weronika Costas filed a Motion to Reopen his case based on changed country conditions. Attorney Costas was able to prove that despite the gains the LGBT movement has gained, the conditions for Gay Brazilians has actually become worse since our client's arrival. Our client's case was reopened in March 2012. Our firm is now working on a Change of Venue from Texas to Ohio and our client will be able to apply for asylum.

2) Family Green Cards: A Brazilian National hired our firm for an H-1B on an EB3 basis on November of 2009. After a month, December of 2009 he received his approval valid from January 2010 to December 2012. On September of 2011 we submitted the Permanent resident's application for him and his family. Client, wife and son received their green cards by the first week of 2012.

3) Work Authorization: Our Brazilian client came to USA through the Mexican border in 2005. He was illegal, but he did not want to stay without status. He used to work as a meat cutter in Brazil, and he found good opportunities to be hired in USA because of his skills. Since 2005 we worked several cases for him, getting an approval of his Labor Certification and later the approval of his I-140 (Immigrant Work visa). In 2007 we filed I-485 for his green card and I-765 to get him a work authorization. The I-485 is still pending, since it is a long process. His work authorization was approved valid for a year, to expire in July 2008. In June 2008, since it was time to renew his work authorization, we filed a new I-765 form. We were happy not only because we received his work authorization in six weeks, but also because this is one of the first cases where a client benefits with a new regulation and gets a two-year work authorization! He qualified for it since his I-485 is pending and there are no visa numbers available yet.(Back to Top)

iranian success stories 

1) Asylum: 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 preliminary 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.

2) I-130: 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.(Back to Top)

pakistani success stories (three)

1) Abusive USC Wife: 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.

2) Tourist Visa: 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.

3) Work Authorization: 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 to Top)

HONDURAN SUCCESS STORIES (three)

1) Work Authorization/Asylum: A client from Honduras hired our office in 2009. We signed for an Asylum case and after five months Mr. R was eligible to apply for a work permit authorization. We filed the form I-765 for the first time in November 2009 and since then our client is being able to renew his work authorization card every year. The asylum case is still pending and our Attorneys are working hard on getting this case approved.

2) Visitor Visa: On October 24, 2011, a client from Honduras wanted to extend visitor visa for herself and her daughter. She visited our office on the date of expiration of her visa. Attorney Weronika Costas immediately prepared and filed documents and an affidavit which explains late filing. A month later, USCIS approved without RFE.

3) Rescind Removal/TPS: We helped a Honduran client living in Ohio get her final removal order rescinded and reopened. She filed for Temporary Protective Status without using a lawyer in 2003. After her TPS application was denied, she was mailed a Notice to Appear in immigration court in Virginia for removal proceedings. She was also sent two hearing notices. She only received the second hearing notice, and she had no way to travel to Virginia in time for the hearing. The Court ordered her removed “in absentia.” In October 2010, we filed a Motion to Reopen with the Virginia Immigration Court. In November 2010, the Court agreed to rescind her removal order and reopen her case.(Back to Top)

Salvadorian success stories (Five)

1) TPS: A client from El Salvador hired our firm for a TPS case in late 2008. We filed the application I-821, application for temporary protected status on December of 2008. Our client and his wife received the approval notice and work permit within the next three months from the date of the submission. Since 2008 we have been hired every year by husband and wife to renew their TPS. They trust our team and they have the peace of mind that we are filing their application on time.

2) Work Authorization/Asylum: Client from Metapan, El Salvador entered the U.S. in 2000. He retained Margaret Wong & Assoc. to assist with filing an application for asylum and temporary protected status. While the applications were pending, it was discovered that the client had an outstanding warrant in a criminal case. Investigations uncovered that the client was charged with one felony and two misdemeanors. We were able to negotiate a plea agreement whereby the client plead guilty to misdemeanor driving without a license in exchange for the felony and second misdemeanor charges being dismissed. In the meantime, an Employment Authorization was filed and approved on November 15, 2010 and renewed on November 10, 2011, allowing the client to work pending final determination of his asylum claim.

3) MTR for TPS: 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.

4) TPS: 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.

5) TPS: 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.(Back to Top)

Indonesian success stories (Three)

1) k Visa: Our client met the love of his life online; unfortunately, she lived far away- in Indonesia. He visited her in her homeland and they spoke on the phone every day. Finally they decided to get married. They picked out a wedding dress together and planned their future. The client came to us for help in bringing his fiancée to the United States. We got to know the client and his fiancée very well, communicating with them frequently. We worked with the clients to prepare a K fiancé visa petition for the Indonesian fiancée, and discussed the interview process with the fiancée, in order to ease her nerves about the process. Her interview went by without a hitch, and she will soon be on her way to the United States to marry her fiancé.

2) I-131 and I -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.

3) Work Authorization/Asylum: An Indonesian couple retained our office to file an application for an Employment Authorization in November 2011. Their case is based on an asylum case that is still pending on a final decision. On January 2012 husband and wife received their employment authorization cards. As of right now our clients are still waiting on their asylum final decision but they have the peace of mind to have their jobs secured with their work permit cards.(Back to Top)

french success stories (two)

1) I-485: A client from France had been working in the US as a Director of Business Development under an L1A. She got married with a US citizen, and she retained us to apply her green card on May 6, 2010. We gathered all necessary documents from the client and filed I-130, I-485 and I-765 on May 25. We received receipt notice from USCIS on June 1 and received RFE on June 17, 2010. We immediately responded to RFE, and her I-485 was approved in early November 2010. Attorney Francis Fungsang handled the case.

2) Abused by USC Husband: One of our clients, a French National, came to the United States. She later married a United States Citizen. She had a tumultuous relationship with her husband. She was physically abused, and harmed by her husband. He was charged with domestic violence. She had left her husband and stayed in a women's shelter. Attorney Jason Lorenzon filed the initial I-360 application which was determined to be a prima facie case, meaning that the first step in this self petitioning process for a green card was approved and completed, which was on July 30, 2010. Our client will be able to remain in the United States during the pendency of this petition which is available to people who have experienced domestic violence.(Back to Top)

Ghana success stories including one of our first widow cases! (two)

1) Widow: 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.

2) Work Authorization/Asylum: A client from Ghana hired our firm for an asylum case. We immediately filed the asylum application on June 2011. Six months later, we filed an I-765 Application for Work Authorization. On December 2011 our client received his employment authorization card from USCIS under C8 category; his EAD is good through 12/2012. Client is very happy and working for his employer under no pressure.(Back to Top)

Dominican success stories (two)

1) B Visa/I-130: Our Dominican client came to the U.S. on a B-2 visa with her daughter. She sought a better life for her daughter, a life free from the dangers of her native country where gang violence, human trafficking, and rape are common occurrences. In order to make ends meet, our client took a job as a prepcook. She worked hard to pay for her daughter's tuition, so that her daughter could have the opportunities that she wasn't afforded, and hopefully may one day, live the ‘American dream' that all immigrants strive to realize. While in the U.S., our client met her husband, who also came to this country with his son. Together, they have formed a wonderful family, full of love and compassion for one another. However, our client's B-2 visa had expired and she, along with her daughter, were facing deportation. At that point our client contacted us, and we began what would prove to be the long and arduous task of getting their I-130 petition approved. Because of the exorbitant amount of fees associated with the entire process, we decided it best to waive any fees on our behalf after the second interview failed to grant our client their I-130 approval. It was only after appealing to the BIA and having our client and her husband undergo three interviews were we able to get her I-130 approved. Once this was accomplished it was only a matter of time before we were able to secure a green card for her and her daughter. An old Chinese proverb states that "a family in harmony will prosper in everything." Family is very important to us at Margaret W. Wong & Associates and we strive to ensure that we can preserve the harmony of a family by doing everything in our power to prevent them from being separated from one another.

2) K Visa: Attorney Jason Lorenzon was successful in attaining a K-1 visa approval for our client, a national of the Dominican Republic, and her USC spouse. The USC spouse approached our office and after talking to the Couple, Mr. Lorenzon filed the appropriate visa petition and supporting documents demonstrating the validity of the relationship and their intent on getting married once she comes to the United States. The visa petition was approved without any requests for further evidence. Now, our client and her future husband are one step closer to living and being part of the American Dream!(Back to Top)

Romanian success stories including one on abusive relationship (Three)

1) Abusive USC Husband: 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.

2) Asylum: 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!

3) H-4 Visas: 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.(Back to Top)

korean success stories (ten)

1) E-2 Visa: In summer 2011, we were retained by a South Korean business owner to extend his work visa as well as a non-immigrant visa for his wife. An E2 extension for the I-129 Petition for a Non-Immigrant Worker and I-539 Application to Extend Non-Immigrant Status was filed on 8/4/2011. A RFE was received on 9/16/11, and was filed less than one week later on 9/22/11. About two months later, the I-129 and I-539 were approved and our clients' visas were extended until 2013.

2) Student Visa/Green Card: A South Korean citizen came to the US in 1997 on a visitor's visa. She then obtained a student visa and began to study piano at a US university in 1998. In 2001, she married a fellow South Korean, who was a LPR and later became a US Citizen. Based on his citizenship, he petitioned for our client and later applied for a Green Card various times but these attempts were denied. Unfortunately, her husband was extremely abusive and they later divorced in 2009. In February 2010, she retained our firm to obtain her green card. In August, we filed an I-360 Self-Petition for Battered Spouses of United States Citizens. After many months of waiting, a RFE was received in June 2011, requesting more evidence demonstrating the ex-husband's extreme cruelty and our client's good moral character. The response was filed in mid-September. The I-360 petition was ordered approved on 10/19/2011. With this approval our client was also granted Deferred Action, which means that our client won't be deported and is now eligible for work authorization. Our client is extremely happy with this result and we are currently working with her so she can finally get a green card.

3) Rescind Removal Order: Korean client from Atlanta was visiting his girlfriend in Dallas, Texas and accompanied her to the airport to pick up some friends. Immigration officials detained them, interrogated them, fingerprinted them, and a week later sent them Notices to Appear in Immigration Court. When our client did not appear in court, the Dallas Immigration Judge ordered him removed in absentia. In October 2010 we filed a Motion to Reopen and argued that our client was never properly served the Notice to Appear. Three weeks later, the judge agreed, rescinded his removal order, and reopened his case so he can adjust status with USCIS as the beneficiary of his father’s petition.

4) Work Authorization: A Korean National who has a long history in the United States has a pending I-485 adjustment of status application with the immigration court. Our client is married to a United States Citizen. Due to the complexity of the case and the law, since he is eligible to adjust under 245(i) since he has been here since the mid 1990’s and had an initial I-130 filed for him back in the late 1990’s, immigration was having some difficulty in granting a work authorization card. Immigration issued a request for further evidence and our team promptly responded to it. We incessantly followed up and pushed immigration to grant the work authorization card. Eventually, the work authorization card was granted. . During the pendency of this adjustment of status application and since most immigration courts have a one to two year back log, our team filed a work authorization card. With this benefit, our client can work in the United States, acquire a social security card and renew a validly issued state driver’s license. This first part of the application process is the granting of the I-765, Employment Authorization document. Attorney Jason Lorenzon is overseeing this case.

Work Authorization: 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.

Work Authorization: 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.

I-765: (Employment Authorization based on I-485 filing) Client is a Korean national, and a research scientist. Our office filed the I-140, a self petition under the category of National Interest Waiver, concurrent with I-485 for green cards for client and family members. The I-140 has been approved and the I-485s are still pending. Although client still has a valid H-1B under his current employer, a work authorization will provide more protection and coverage just in case there is any unexpected change in the job situation. We filed the I-765 on Nov. 19, 2008 and it was approved in less than 2 weeks.

5) B-2 Visa: 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.

6) L-1B Visa: 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.

7) Adjustment of Status: 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.(Back to Top)

Peruvian success stories (three)

1) N-400: 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!

2) I-140:  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.

3) O-1 Visa: 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.(Back to Top)

Mongolian Success Stories (two)

1) I-140/I-485: 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.

2) Work Authorization: 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.(Back to Top)

african success stories (three)

1) Catholic Priest: 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.

2) Work Authorization: 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.

3) 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.(Back to Top)

nicaraguan success stories (two)

1) I-601: 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.

2) Temporary Protective Status/Work Authorization: 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.(Back to Top)

hungarian Success stories (two)

1) R Visa: 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.

2) Citizenship: 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 consequently 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.(Back to Top)

Others Page One:

Thriving Chinese Student

Our client, a 22 year old from China has always worked hard. Since adolescence, he has always dreamed of living in the United States and attending a prestigious university. This client perfectly exhibited the motto that with hard work and perseverance anything is possible. Studiously slaving away over his work, he obtained a high school diploma in the US. He began looking forward to college, and took the ACT and SAT multiple times. After many hardships and failures, he finally achieved a score in the 84th percentile on his 4th ACT. He was admitted into a nationally ranked university, where he obtained a cumulative GPA of 3.5 over his first few years. We saw the determination in our client, and helped him every step of the way in obtaining his work permit. The American Dream is open to anyone and everyone who has the determination, perseverance, and the drive to achieve their goals. He was approved for his I-485, and he will continue to be not only a scholar, but also a prime example of the American Dream.(Back to Top)

Young Chinese Man Sole Family SUPPORTER

We were contacted by a 37 year old from China who had been living in the US in order to help him obtain his I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjustment of Status.) Not only could he not find work in China, but he also needed to support his ailing mother and father who lived in the US as citizens. Therefore, our client – a strong proponent for filial responsibility – had no other option but to move to the United States and to aid his parents financially. He worked as a chef for 5 years, and provided for his mother who suffered from diabetes, depression, and hypertension. Margaret Wong fought hard for her client, full well knowing that if he were deported, his mother would suffer the impossible decision of either having to move back to China where she couldn't find work in her rural town, or stay in the US and continue to suffer silently from depression. We convinced the USCIS that a law-abiding citizen would suffer untold amounts of pain due to the departure of her sole provider and child. Without the help of Margaret Wong, a hardworking man from China would not have been able to support his chronically ill mother, and a family would have been torn apart.(Back to Top)

Aggravated Felon Adjustment of Status

Our client came to us after his I-485 was denied because he had a deportation order.  He was married to a United States citizen and had an approved I-130.  He also had an aggravated felony conviction.  We were able to get his deportation order reopened.  We filed an adjustment of status application with the Immigration Court along with a waiver for the aggravated felony conviction.  The hearing in the case was in July 2013.  After considering the evidence and extensive testimony, the adjustment of status application was granted.  Scott Bratton handled the case.(Back to Top)

We Appeal motion to reopen and succeed

Our clients (husband and wife) hired us to assess their options for obtaining status.  In looking into the case, we discovered that each had a prior in absentia order of removal.  We obtained their court and DHS files.  The removal case was started after applications filed by a travel agency on our client's behalf were denied.  The address for each on the applications was wrong.  Our clients stated they were unaware this address was used.  Thus, our clients did not get the Notices to Appear or hearing notices.  We filed a motion to reopen to rescind the in absentia orders based on lack of receipt of the Notices to Appear.  DHS argued that our clients could be charged with receiving the Notices to Appear because they were sent to the address they provided and they cannot avoid their obligation to appear by giving an address where they never lived.  The Immigration Judge denied the motions to reopen.  We appealed each denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals.  In June 2013, the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with our arguments and reopened each case.  Our clients can now apply for relief from removal.  Scott Bratton handled the case.(Back to Top)

Conviction Against torture

Our client hired us after he withdrew his asylum application to get a continuance for USCIS to adjudicate his I-130.  Unfortunately his marriage did not work out.  When we were retained, we filed a new I-589 and argued that he should at least be permitted to apply for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT").  The Immigration Judge disagreed and we appealed his decision.  On appeal, we wrote a thorough brief explaining our position.  The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with us and remanded the case to allow our client to apply for withholding of removal and CAT.  Scott Bratton handled the BIA appeal.(Back to Top)

REopen removal case based on fear of accusations of adultery

Our client came to us after she had learned that she was ordered removed many years ago for missing her hearing. Our office filed a motion to reopen her removal case based on numerous circumstances that led to her missing court. The case was reopened. We then prepared an asylum application and filed it with the court. The case was based on a fear of harm for being a woman accused of adultery in India. We argued that there was an exception to the one-year rule due to changed circumstances for women in India as a result of the recent problems for women there. In January 2013, the immigration judge granted our client's asylum application. Scott Bratton handled the case.(Back to Top)

Asylum and now green card

A Chinese client came to our New York office to retain our firm while he was in deportation proceedings. He had previously filed for asylum and had an appeal pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. After retaining our firm, his asylum application was approved and one of our attorneys accompanied him to the asylum grant processing appointment. We then waiting the requisite one year time period and filed his application to adjust status. Within two months of filing these applications, our client's application was approved and he received his green card.(Back to Top)

Sponsorship from Employer (Twelve Stories)

1) Pending: Clients who have been with the firm for a long time recently decided to make their status in the United States permanent. Previously, the basis for the family's stay in the US had been based on the wife's employment. After an offer of sponsorship from the husband's employer we refiled their case. As this case could take some time for a decision and the clients may have to wait for an open visa number, we simultaneously filed for work authorization for all the family members. These have now been approved and they can continue to work in the US while their case is pending.

2) H-1B /I-140: Our clients had been here on the basis of the husband's H-1B visa. Following an offer from his employer to sponsor him for permanent residency, the employer contacted Ms. Wong to handle the case. Knowing that these applications can take some time, Ms. Wong recommended to file the I-140 application and upon receiving a receipt notice from USCIS that we should file the green card application immediately. Importantly, we also filed an I-765 (work authorization requests) for our client's family. Previously, as H-4 visa holders they were not able to have work authorization. In that status for three years, now following Ms. Wong's strategy, in the space of 3 month's our client's wife and daughter could now work in the United States.

3) L-1A Visa: An employer wanted to extend the L-1A visa for an individual who had been working for them in a managerial capacity. The employer also wanted to sponsor their employee for lawful permanent residence status. To complete both of these tasks, the employer contacted the immigration firm of Margaret W. Wong & Associates. The attorneys and staff at the firm filed Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, with the L supplement. Separately they filed Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, under the EB-1 category with Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. The L-1A visa was approved by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and shortly thereafter the petition and green card application were approved as well. The employer was glad to have both their tasks fulfilled at one firm which had many years of experience in business immigration.

4) PERM: An employer wanted to sponsor a Chinese national to work at their company. They needed guidance in the complex process. The employer contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates for assistance. The attorneys and staff at the firm first completed PERM (Program Electronic Review Management) which includes placement of ads and other requirements to see if there are any qualified U.S. workers for the job the employer wants to fill. After the PERM was approved, the I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, was filed with the I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence and Adjust Status. USCIS reviewed the petition and application and approved both. The employer was very happy to be able to sponsor a hard working employee. Margaret W. Wong & Associates used its years of experience in employment immigration to guide the employer smoothly through the process.

5) i-140: When an employer is seeking to sponsor a foreign national, the employer must first file Form ETA 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification. The application is not simply a form but a process that must be undertaken in order to achieve approval quickly. An employer contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates to guide the company through the application process. The company was large and had over 300 employees thus it wanted an experienced firm to assist it. The attorneys and staff members of the law firm worked efficiently and placed the required ads, obtained the required information, and filed Form ETA 9089. Within two and a half months the application was approved by U.S. Department of Labor and now the company can begin petitioning the foreign national. The employer is also seeking Margaret W. Wong & Associates assistance in filing the I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, and I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence and Adjust Status. The law firm of Margaret W. Wong & Associates was glad to be of service to one of their corporate clients and ultimately to continue to help companies in the immigration process.

6) PERM/I-140: A South Korean National and his family were seeking to become Permanent Residents of the United States. His employer was willing to sponsor him and so he knew he had a path. The problem was that he did not, nor did his employer know, what he had to do to get a Green Card. So the individual and the employer sought out the help of Margaret W. Wong & Associates. The attorneys and staff members at the firm helped him and his employer every step of the way; from the entire PERM process (i.e. placing ads, filing forms with the Department of Labor, etc.) to the filing of Forms I-485, Application for Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. The South Korean National and his family were very happy when they saw the hard work and effort the firm had put into his case. All parties left happy. He and his family were rewarded with Green Cards, the employer was rewarded with a great worker, and the firm was rewarded with another success.

7) i-140: A Native of China had been working in the United States under an H-1B visa. His employer loved his work and wanted to sponsor him to become a Permanent Resident of the United States. The employer contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates to help them complete this process. The attorneys and staff members at the firm helped the employer through the PERM process and filing of the I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. They helped the Chinese National with the I-485, Application for Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and explained to him the process his employer was going through. Alongside helping the individual obtain a Green Card, the firm helped file an I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, to keep the Chinese National in status while the process was pending. The Employer and the Chinese National were ecstatic when they were notified by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services with approval notices for all the applications and forms that were filed on their behalf. Margaret W. Wong & Associates were glad to help another client with their case.

8) I-140: Our firm was originally retained in July 2004 by a Company located in Ohio that wished to sponsor an employee for permanent residence. After receiving labor certification in only three months after filing, we filed an I-140 petition on behalf of our Chinese citizen client, which was also approved. In February 2007, when all the immigrant visa numbers were current for a one month time-period, we filed the I-485 application based on this same employment. Throughout this time, we helped the company continue to file extensions of the H1B status for the client. We continued to file the extension of his H-1B visa until finally the EB3 classification became current. In May of 2012, our client received his ten year permanent resident (Green Card) through the employment- based process. The employer and the client were happy to have the immigration process completed. Attorney Margaret W. Wong, paralegal Brian Marek handled this case.

9) I-140: Our Mexican client works as a Landscape Supervisor. He came to USA in mid 2004, but we met him at the end of 2005. We were really impressed on how he was a very smart young man. He came to USA with his wife and they later had two children, born in USA. His employer sponsored him for an I-140 (Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker) and we had it approved by September 2006. In July 2007 we filed an I-485 (green card petition) together with an I-765 (work authorization). Their green card is still pending, since he is from Mexico and there is a necessary waiting time. His work authorization, valid for one year, took three months to be approved. In 2008 he looked for us again. Not only did he need to renew his work authorization, but he was also thinking of a new job and prospective employer. His concern was that his current employer had sponsored him for the I-140. Would he have to start all over again if he chose to change his job? His face showed so much relief when we told him that he was protected by AC21 (American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act, for Adjustment of Status applicants). Since he had an I-485 pending for more than 6 months, and an approved I-140, he could switch to another employer with no problem. Of course he was grateful to his current employer for sponsoring him for a work visa, but for the sake of his family he needed to move on to better opportunities. We did file for his I-765 renewal. Again he benefited from a new regulation. Not only his new work authorization was approved in only two months, he now got one valid for two years because of his pending I-485. One smart person and many opportunities ahead. We have no doubt he will get a much better job and a green card in the near future.

10) MTR/I-140: 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.

11) I-131 While Sponsored: 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.

12) I-129: An employer wanted a national of India to work at their company as an H-1B nonimmigrant worker. He had the credentials to fill the position that was available. The employer wanted a firm with experience who could guide them through the process. They contacted the law firm of Margaret W. Wong& Associates to assist them in the matter. The attorneys and staff at the firm filed Form ETA-9035/9035E, Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers. This form is used by the government to ensure that the foreign national is being paid the prevailing wage. Once approved by the Department of Labor, Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, with the H supplement was filed. Through proper preparation and with premium processing, the petition was approved in 10 days. The employer was glad to have worked with attorneys who were professional and guided them throughout the process.(Back to Top)

Failing to appear at hearing 

Our client came to us after he was ordered to be deported by an immigration judge for failing to appear for his hearing. He came to us and said that he did not know he was in deportation proceedings. He has filed a green card application which was denied and never heard anything else because he moved. Our office prepared a motion to reopen alleging that our client's case should be reopened because he did not receive notice of the deportation proceedings. We submitted evidence to show he actually lived at another address. The immigration judge denied our motion. We then appealed the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals. We submitted a detailed legal argument to show the case should be reopened. After considering our brief, the Board of Immigration Appeals reopened the case. Scott Bratton handled the case.(Back to Top)

Cancellation of removal process (five stories)

1) Our firm was retained by an Indian husband and wife to apply for asylum as well as cancellation of removal orders resulting in a green card. Our staff filed the husband and wife's asylum applications, and then waited a few more months until both had resided in the United States for the requisite ten year years in order to apply for cancellation of removal. Our staff worked very hard on this case, gathering many documents and expert witnesses to testify at the hearing. The hearing went very smoothly, and the applications were approved quickly. Within two years, both husband and wife had received their green cards.

2) A native of Serbia was in the United States illegally for over 10 years. He had a United States citizen child who he had to take care of and so he could not return to his home country. If his child came with him to Serbia then she would face extreme obstacles in acclimating to a new life. The Serbian national truly had a problem that he could not resolve on his own so he contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates. The attorneys and staff members of the firm helped the native of Serbia to file for Cancellation of Removal. For this relief, the Serbian national had to show that his return to Serbia would cause extreme hardship to his United States citizen child. Thus the firm prepared, researched for, and filed an application that contained a plethora of evidence in support of the Serbian native. The law firm advocated for the client in front of an Immigration Judge, and through zealous representation, the Immigration Judge granted the Serbian national's application for Cancellation of Removal. He is now a lawful permanent resident. The individual was very happy and relieved that he could stay in the United States to watch his child grow and live a better life.

3) A Guatemalan Native was found guilty of battery and put in removal proceedings. With sincere dedication, we, the attorneys and staff members of Margaret W. Wong & Associates, advocated for her stay of removal. A Cancellation of Removal (I-601 Waiver) was filed alongside an Adjustment of Status Application (I-485) in the fight for our client. She had a dream of becoming a Lawful Permanent Resident and that dream was realized with our help on February 3, 2012. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services acknowledged our hard work and effort with an Approval Notice and our client was allowed to stay. The news brought relief to her. The same relief that many others feel when they seek the help of Margaret W. Wong & Associates.

4) 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.

5) 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 waiver and receive his green card rather than waiting almost two years for a hearing on cancellation of removal.(Back to Top)

one child policy in china is credible fear for asylum (three)

1) A man from China retained our firm to apply for asylum based on the one child policy as well as his fear of persecution due to his political views, in China. Our staff helped the client file his application and gather necessary documents to prove fear of persecution due to his participation in political protests. Attorneys William Low and Marisela Marquez were able to win this case for our client, convincing the judge not only of the fear of persecution, but also to waive the requirement to apply for asylum within one year of arriving in the U.S. We are very proud of this success, with the client being granted asylum within six months of applying.

2) Our Chinese client came to the U.S. without inspection in order to escape the horrors of the one-child policies from her native homeland. She was forcibly seized and taken to a local hospital to have an abortion against her will because she was unmarried and pregnant. After this traumatic event that left our client both physically and mentally strained, she was then instructed to sign a contract that required all women who were once found pregnant without permit to have an IUD inserted. This indignity was the last straw for our client, and as such, she sought refuge in the U.S. After her application for asylum was denied, as well as her appeal to the BIA and a subsequent motion to reopen her case, our client came to us in dire straits. We utilized our vast resources and knowledge of the law in order to craft a strong argument in favor of reopening our client's case. We were successful in our endeavors, and our client is now well on her way to receiving her green card, and hopefully becoming a naturalized citizen one day.

3)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.(Back to Top)

From Final Deportation Order to Green Card in Under One Year

Our client visited us a year ago and explained that she had been ordered deported years ago. She was scared that ICE would find her and deport her. She asked if there was anything we could do for her. We gathered proof that she had entered the U.S. with a fake passport, filed an I-130 and I-485 Application with USCIS, and then filed an I-601 hardship waiver. All were approved within six months. We filed with the BIA a Motion to Reopen and Terminate her old immigration case. This was approved in two months. Our client now has a green card and there is old deportation order to worry her again.(Back to Top)

E Visa (four stories)

1) E-2: An alien from the country of South Korea (ROK) retained us to process her E-2 extension for her business that is located in a shopping mall in Kentucky. We ensured the client had all the documents in order to process the case and included all the investments and upgrades made to the business. We filed the E-2 on May 23, 2012. We received approval of the case on November 8, 2012 and informed the client who was exceedingly happy to hear the great news.

2) E-2: Our firm was retained by a German national to apply for his green card. The client was on an E-2 Treaty Investor visa, and had recently married a United States Citizen wife. Our staff prepared the applications and guided the client through collecting the proper documents. We filed for his adjustment of status as well as an application for a travel document, since the client travels frequently for business. The client's interview went very well and his green card application was approved in three months.

3) E-3: An E-3 Petition for a citizen of Australia was filed with USCIS on November 8, 2008. All supporting documents were clearly prepared for the Immigration review. A week after case was filed with the Service Center, our office contacted Immigration and informed Immigration to contact us should they have any questions regarding this matter. An E-3 Petition was approved less than a month via regular processing. Congratulations to our Employment Based department.

4) EB-5: A foreign entrepreneur came us wanting to invest in the United States. We knew that the EB-5 Immigrant Investor visa would be a great option for her, and began work on her case. She invested $500000 into opening a new hotel and we guided her through the process. The hotel was located in a Targeted Investment Area, which means an area with high unemployment or a rural area. We filed Form I-526 and supporting evidence on the client's behalf. We were able to show that our client's investment would create at least ten full-time positions for qualifying employees in the United States by providing a construction timeline and evidence showing how the investments would produce income for the company. We were successful in getting the client her EB-5 visa and we are now in the process of applying for her conditional permanent residence.(Back to Top)

strong I-601 saves chinese woman's green card

A woman from China came to us after having had her green card application (I-485) denied twice by USCIS. The basis for her I-485 Application to Adjust Status was that she had an approved I-140 Immigration Petition for Alien Worker. Unfortunately, before she came to us, USCIS had denied her I-485 and she was not able to get her green card because the USCIS thought she had committed marriage fraud in the past and gave her a 10 year bar. We filed I-485 again and we submitted a brief explaining that there was not a fraud issue. USCIS asked us to file I-601 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility and we worked with the client to prepare a strong I-601; unfortunately her previous lawyer had filed a weak I-601 which was not successful. We also helped the client prepare for her interview. Within a few months, the client finally received her green card and now lives in the United States with her family and without the stress of immigration matters.(Back to Top)

daughters petitioning for family (three stories)

1) A husband and wife from India retained our firm to apply for green cards via a petition by their United States citizen daughter. We prepared the applications and helped the couple arrange for joint sponsors who agreed to file the affidavit of support for the husband and wife. After submitting the family's applications for adjustment of status, one of our attorneys prepared the couple for their interview and the interview went very smoothly. At the interview, the immigration officer asked the couple to submit other documents regarding their daughter's birth. We quickly worked with the client to submit the necessary medical records, and the couple received their green card approvals within two weeks time.

2) A daughter wanted to petition her father, a Chinese national, to become a lawful permanent resident in the United States. She sought help through the process and so contacted the immigration firm of Margaret W. Wong & Associates. The attorneys and staff at the firm filed Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, with Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. Both the daughter and the father were prepared for their interview by the attorneys at the firm. They went into the interview and answered all the questions the officer asked with confidence. The officer approved the father's application and he is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States. The daughter and father were so happy and glad to have retained the services of Margaret W. Wong & Associates.

3) Adjustment of Status granted for Client with past LULAC and SAW applications We prepared an adjustment of status application for our client, who had a very long and complicated immigration history, including LULAC and Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) applications dating back to the 1990's. All of his prior attempts to get lawful permanent residence had been denied. Our client's current application was based on an I-130 petition filed by his US citizen daughter. Although client had made false statements in prior immigration applications, our team of experienced attorneys knew that based on confidentiality rules relating to LULAC and SAW application, nothing he said in those applications could be used against him in his adjustment of status application. We went with our client to his adjustment of status interview to make sure the officer did not make any inappropriate questions regarding past applications, and our client's adjustment was approved the same day.(Back to Top)

Son Petitions for father

A Chinese citizen recently received approval of his USC son's immigration petition filed on his behalf in August 2011. Father and son are excited about this approval and we will continue to work them to reopen the father's case so he may obtain legal residency in the United States.(Back to Top)

proving marriage validity for green card

Indian Man's Case Reopened To Prove First Marriage Was Valid Our client came to U.S. as a conditional permanent resident after marrying a citizen wife in 1998. The marriage lasted only six months, and immigration denied his I-751 in 2000. Respondent was put into court proceedings and was ordered removed in absentia in 2001. His first lawyer tried to reopen his case in 2003 but sent his motion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement instead of the immigration court. In 2012, we filed a new Motion to Reopen. ICE argued that it was invalid because our client had already filed a motion to reopen. The Immigration Court agreed with us that since the first motion was improperly filed, our new motion is valid. The Court reopened his case, and our client will now prove his first marriage was valid, get a permanent green card, and apply for citizenship immediately!(Back to Top)

Joint Motion to Reopen Granted for Client After His First Lawyer Failed

When there is no law under that forces the immigration court to reopen a case, we often ask Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") to join with us in reopening a case. This is entirely at ICE's discretion. A lawyer must know exactly what they are looking for and provide it. The ICE office in every city has different requirements. Our client's first lawyer asked ICE to join in a motion to reopen his case three years ago, but that attorney did not know what ICE wanted and did not return ICE's phone calls. We got complete immigration and criminal reports for our client, and we filed a joint motion to reopen with the Philadelphia ICE office. It was approved 10 days later. Our client will now receive a green card through his US citizen wife.(Back to Top)

Your Lawyer Must be Good Enough to Know When USCIS Makes a Mistake

Your lawyer must know when you can fight back when USCIS denies a green card application. Our client has been waiting for a green card since 1996 when his employer first filed a Petition for him. The employer went out of business and a new employer filed a Petition. The Petition was approved but the USCIS office in Pittsburgh denied our client's green card application. It said that our client could not use his 1996 priority date because the USCIS had revoked his first employer's petition. Rather than wait years for the USCIS appeals office to consider an appeal, we refiled our client's application, and we explained why the 1996 priority date is still valid. This time the USCIS Pittsburgh office agreed, and our client's green card was approved.(Back to Top)

reopening cases for green card

I-485 approved without 245i twelve years after entry without inspection This Chinese client is married to a U.S. citizen, but he thought he would never get a green card because he entered without inspection and was not eligible for 245i. An immigration judge had ordered him deported in 1998. In 2011, he hired us to reopen his case and get him a green card. When we obtained a copy of all of his immigration papers, we learned that a lawyer had previously failed twice to reopen his case. We also found that INS had issued him an I-94 when it released him from the custody of a foster home at age 17. We convinced the immigration judge to reopen his case "sua sponte" and we helped him get his I-130 approved even though his wife and he lived in different states. Next, we convinced DHS to join us in requesting that his court proceedings would be terminated and his case given to USCIS. Finally, we got him his green card directly from USCIS.(Back to Top)

green card after airport detention and priority fugitive 

I-485 approved years after client was detained at airport and ordered deported Our client got her green card only nine months after hiring us. She was stopped at the airport many years ago and detained because she did not have a passport or visa. An immigration judge granted her voluntary departure, but she did not depart. In the eyes of the DHS, she has been a fugitive for eight years and a priority for deportation. We filed her I-485 and I-130 (based on marriage to U.S. citizen spouse) and convinced the officer who interviewed her to grant the green card even though she was a fugitive. One week later, she received her Welcome Notice from USCIS congratulating her on being approved for a green card.(Back to Top)

immigrant visas for children

Immigrant Visas approved after successful response to DS-230 RFE This client came to us after her former lawyer filed incomplete applications for her two children's immigrant visas. We contacted the National Visa Center regarding our client's RFE (request for evidence), we filed all necessary documents within six weeks, and our client's children both entered the United States with approved immigrant visas a few months later. Our client is very happy,and she said it would have been much less stressful and less expensive if she had come to us in the first place.(Back to Top)

Naturalization despite past crime

A native of China had been a lawful permanent resident in the United States for over five years. She wanted to take the next step and become a citizen of this country; however, she had some issues relating to her past. She had been charged with a crime which had been dismissed. Needing guidance on the matter, she contacted the law firm of Margaret W. Wong & Associates. The lawyers and staff at the firm reviewed her case and filed Form N-400, Application for Naturalization. When she received her interview notice, the attorney handling her case made sure she was prepared for the questions the immigration officer may ask. She felt confident and by the end of the interview, the officer approved her case for naturalization. She was so happy to finally fulfill her dream of becoming a citizen. The lawyers and staff at Margaret W. Wong & Associates were happy to assist her.(Back to Top)

helping clients out of detention

A Chinese national was picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and detained at one of their detention facilities. He felt overwhelmed and sad that he would be kept from his family. He contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates to help him come home and not be sent back to China. The attorneys and staff at the firm constantly kept in contact with the officers working on the Chinese national's case. After advocating for their client, the attorneys and staff at the firm were able to get this individual out from detention and instead placed on an order of supervision where he was able to get a work permit. He was excited and thankful that he could finally be at home with his wife and children. Margaret W. Wong & Associates were happy to help another clients reunite with their family.(Back to Top)

Bringing his wife and step-daughter to the us from china

A United States Citizen wanted to bring his wife and his step-daughter from China to the United States to live with him. He needed help through the process so he contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates. The lawyers and staff at the firm gathered all the required documents and information, and then filed Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved the petitions and so the next step in Consular Processing began. Form DS-230 was completed and the required documents were gathered by the firm to then send to the consulate which had control over the case. After the interview, The United States Citizen's wife and step-child were approved and they received their immigrant visa. They are currently in the United States and have received their green cards. The client was ecstatic that his wife and step-child are now able to live with him in the United States. He thanked Margaret W. Wong & Associates for their help.(Back to Top)

deferred action for client living in the us for over 27 years 

Attorney Andy Bramante was recently successful in obtaining Deferred Action for one of our clients. A native of South Korea, this client has lived in the United States since 1984, over 27 years! He was ordered to depart the United States in 1984 but never received the notice. Attorney Bramante request Deferred Action on his outstanding removal order, citing his contributions to the community and close family ties. Our client has two U.S. citizen children, is married to a U.S. citizen and is also the sole financial support of his U.S. ex-wife, who is disabled with total kidney failure. With the grant of Deferred Action, our client has now applied for work authorization. We have also filed an I-130 Family Petition on behalf of his wife. Upon its approval, we plan to file a Joint Motion to Reopen his deportation case with DHS so that our client may pursue adjustment of status with USCIS. Attorney Bramante was assisted by paralegal Melissa Logan.(Back to Top)

I-730 with asylum (two stories)

1) Our client was granted derivative asylum status when the I-730 filed by his wife was approved. After a year in asylum status, our client applied for and was granted adjustment of status. However, our client still had an outstanding removal order, which put him at risk of being deported even though he was a permanent resident. We therefore filed a motion to reopen and terminate his removal proceedings. The Board of Immigration Appeals granted our motion which in essence made the removal order go away and then the client's removal proceedings were permanently closed. The client can rest assured that his case is not complete and Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot detain him or try to deport him.

2) 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 has a final order of removal. She is from China. She was in ICE custody for about 180 days.(Back to Top)

business reconstruction for visa

Client came to us after his L-1A and H-1B visa petitions were both denied based on the filings prepared by another highly publicized immigration law firm. The US office is very small and barely staffed so the USCIS denied his two previous petitions because his position could not be qualified and quantified for a full time manager/executive' position. But the client repeatedly explained that the parent office in China could not allow him to hire more people when he himself could not even get a work visa to actually supervise anyone in the US office on a daily basis. Facing this dilemma, we explained to the Client what adjustment he could make to his business organizationally/structurally and we also spent a lot of time talking to him what exactly he really does each time he comes to the US and how important it is that he gets the visa and work here. Through our hard work, we put together a convincing package and filed it to the USCIS. Predictably, we got a RFE requesting for more information; but since we were fully prepared, we dealt with each of the USCIS questions carefully and adequately and we got the approval the same month we filed the RFE Response. We filed the case in February and got the approval in June.(Back to Top)

Doctor Gets Green Card Based on Marriage and J-1 Waiver

A well-known Ohio doctor became a lawful permanent resident despite his fears that he would first have to return to his eastern European country for two years. This client came to us in early 2011 with a problem. He was in the U.S. lawfully on an O-1 non-immigrant visa, and he had recently married a U.S. citizen who could petition for him. But, because he came to the U.S. in 1997 on a J-1 exchange visa to do his medical residency, he was obligated to return to his own country for at least two years. With few exceptions, J-1 visa holders may never get a green card until they spend two years living in their home country. Our efforts on behalf of this client came in two stages. First, we developed substantial evidence showing our client's USC wife would suffer extreme hardship if our client had to return to his home country for two years. Based on this evidence, the USCIS granted our client a waiver so he could get a green card without returning home for two years. Next, we walked our client through the I-130/I-485 process. Because our client had some worrisome arrests and a rocky marriage, we spent several hours preparing our client and his wife for the adjustment of status interview. They testified honestly and beautifully at their interview, and our client's green card was approved on the spot.(Back to Top)

J-1 Visa to H-1B Visa to permanent resident

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.(Back to Top)

J-1/j-2 visa transition to f-1 visa (three stories)

1) Student visa application at US consulate in Canada for new client: Our office was hired to help a Chinese student who is a minor with an expiring J-2 visa in the US to get a student visa so she could remain in the US to finish high school after his J-1 Visa holder father finishes his J-1 term and returns to China We worked with client on Canadian visa application so client could first travel to Canada, and then guided client on gathering all necessary documents , and also accompanied the minor to one of U.S. consulates in Canada. The F-1 visa was granted right at the interview and client has received her F-1 visa and returned to the US with a valid I-94 and started her school already. Because of our good quality service, the client has already contacted us for further services.

2) A Turkish teacher came to see us in January 2008. He was very concerned about his immigration case, previously handled by another lawyer. He told us he came to USA for the first time in July 2007 under a J-1 visa as a student exchange visitor, sponsored by an organization for bilingual professionals. In September 2007 his previous lawyer filed an I-539 to change his status from J-1 to F-1 (student visa), since he wanted to study an intensive English as a Second language course which would enable him to pass some difficult academic tests. However, the I-539 was denied in January 2008 because USCIS said he had withdrawn or abandoned the J-1 program in August 2007, so he had failed to maintain legal status and therefore had stayed in USA in violation of the law. After doing some research, in February 2008 we filed a Motion to Reopen. We were able to prove that he had never abandoned the program; instead it was the organization who had failed to present annual paperwork to the Department of State and therefore was no longer a valid sponsor for J-1 visa. The organization failed to properly inform the students, so our client was not aware that he was out of status. One month later the Motion was granted, and the processing of I-539 continued, so USCIS asked for more evidence. In May 2008 we timely filed this evidence and waited for an answer. We did follow up and filed inquiries about this case. On August 6 2008 we called USCIS and filed a claim because it was taking too long and also their website showed they had sent some documentation to us in April, which we had not received. Only five days after that we received the I-539 approval. Our client will now be studying under an F-1 visa, valid for the duration of his status as student in this English as a Second Language program.

3) 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.(Back to Top)

exceptional malaysian scholar suffers extreme hardship but earns green card

The strength of a family is often defined by the challenges that test each members resolve, devotion, and commitment towards achieving a common goal. For our Malaysian client and his family, building a life in the United States amidst the most extreme personal hardship proved that no challenge is too great and no goal is ever too far away. After assisting our client for over ten years, it was an excellent pleasure for our family to provide faith, hope, and opportunity for another. Our client entered the United States in September of 1986 on a J-I visa. After scoring in the top 10% of Malaysia's standardized testing program, he received a scholarship from the Malaysian government and enrolled in an intensive English program in California. Following the successful completion of the program, our client enrolled in the Chemical Engineering Program at a well-known university. After earning his Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering, he moved to Cleveland, Ohio to pursue a practical training program. Shortly after moving to Cleveland, our client met and fell in love with his wife, whom was diagnosed with gestational diabetes after she learned of her first pregnancy. Shortly thereafter, our client's wife gave birth to a beautiful daughter, whom was hospitalized due to severe jaundice. Our client knew that in order to take care of his family, he must adjust his status and become a permanent resident of the United States. For our client to adjust status, he needed to be approved for a J-1 Waiver: a waiver of the requirement that recipients reside outside the United States for at least two years prior to returning or leaving the United States. Unfortunately, he was denied an I-485-Adjustment to Permanent Resident Status-because he did not have a J-1 Waiver. Now, our client faced new trials and tribulations of everyday life, requiring the focus, strength, and determination that came to characterize his amazing story. Our client's wife soon gave birth to another gorgeous daughter. Unfortunately, his daughter was born prematurely and suffered from developmental problems, which required the utmost personal attention from both our client and his wife. Two years later, our client and his wife made a new addition to their family: this time, a handsome boy. For our client, leaving his wife and three children behind was out of the question. For various reasons, it was essential our client obtain a J-1 Waiver. Transplanting his family to Malaysia would have resulted in exceptional hardship with regard to religious, cultural, political, medical, and social reasons. Furthermore, assuming our client faced deportation, it would be almost impossible for his wife to sufficiently support herself and her three children in her husband's absence. Our lawyers, along with various staff, secured both asylum and work authorization while working towards getting a J-1 Waiver approved. Following years of hardship, struggle, and various personal challenges, our client finally received a J-1 Waiver! Soon afterwards, he was the direct beneficiary of an I-130-Petition for Alien Relative-filed by his wife, and later was approved for permanent resident status in the United States. Though our client's case was one of great length and personal difficulty, his persistence in working with us and his devotion towards his family was reinforced by the faith and hope that kept his family together, under one roof in our great country.(Back to Top)

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.(Back to Top)

10-year green card for overstay j-1 visa holder

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.(Back to Top)

Good Preparation Was the Key to a Successful, Fast Naturalization

Our Kenyan client was approved for naturalization in less than four months even though he had a driving while intoxicated (DWI) arrest, he had failed to register for the selective service, and he had numerous exits and entries - some as long as six months - after getting his green card. He is a successful financial consultant who came to the U.S. twenty-five years ago to study. He married a US citizen, and got his green card. His marriage fell apart, he got divorced, and he waited fifteen years to try to become a citizen. He worried about how hard and long the process would be. We made the process fast, smooth, and painless for him. We went to criminal court to get a certified record showing that his DWI charged was dismissed. We helped him write an affidavit explaining his failure to register for the selective service, and we worked with him to identify and document all of his exits and entries. Rather than wait until the interview, we provided the USCIS all the information with our client's N-400. Not surprisingly, our client's interview was completed in less than fifteen minutes, and there was not a wrinkle or a worry. Our client is delighted to be approved for citizenship.(Back to Top)

filing two i-485, avoiding removal

A Chinese national had her I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, denied by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. She was placed in removal proceedings. She felt hopeless and afraid and she needed help. The native of China contacted the immigration law firm of Margaret W. Wong & Associates. The attorneys and staff members at the firm immediately started working on her case by filing a Motion to Reopen and a Motion to Stay Removal so she could remain in the United States while her case was still being fought. While proceedings commenced, another I-485 was filed for the Chinese national. Through proper preparation the I-485 was approved. The government terminated its proceedings against the native of China and she received her green card. She was so happy to be able to remain in the United States with her husband and children. The attorneys and staff at Margaret W. Wong & Associations were glad to assist one of their clients in achieving her goals.(Back to Top)

employment based avenue to the united states

A native of China was seeking to enter the United States through the employment based avenue. He wanted to know which one best suited his credentials. He contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates for help. The attorneys and staff at the firm analyzed his resume and found that he fit in the Employment Bases 1st Category for individuals with extraordinary abilities. In conjunction with the EB1-1, an O-1 visa (also for individuals with extraordinary abilities) was filed as well to give the Chinese national two avenues to remain in the United States. The I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, was filed with the I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence and Adjust Status. Shortly thereafter, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved the petition and permanent residence application. The client was extremely happy and satisfied with the professional service he received and Margaret W. Wong & Associates.(Back to Top)

fake visa holder now green card holder

A client who entered the US without inspection, with a fake (unknown to him) visa given to him by a relative, came to us for help. We helped him apply for adjustment of status under a provision of the law that allows certain persons, who have an immigrant visa immediately available but entered without inspection or otherwise violated their status making them ineligible to apply for adjustment of status in the United States, to apply if they pay a $1,000 penalty. The client's application, however, took a prolonged time to get a decision. We followed up zealously in order to receive a decision. We helped the client prepare for his difficult interview with USCIS, which ended successfully. The client received his green card and was able to remain in the United States with his family.(Back to Top)

clarifying lawful permanent residency process (two stories)

1) A Chinese national wanted to become a lawful permanent resident of the United States. He was confused by the process and did not want to make a mistake that would cause United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to deny his application. He contacted the immigration firm of Margaret W. Wong & Associates for help. The attorneys and staff at the firm filed Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, on his behalf. Through proper preparation of the file, the application was approved by USCIS. The Chinese national was excited and glad to have retained the firm's services. He joined a long list of clients who have asked Margaret W. Wong & Associates for help and achieved their goals.

2) An Indian national was in removal proceedings when he contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates. He needed help because he was overwhelmed and did not know where to begin. He had heard of the firm before and the years of experience the attorneys and staff had on these matters. His hopes depended on an I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, which USCIS had requested more evidence to support. The attorneys and staff filed the RFE with USCIS and soon the I-485 was approved. Once the good news was heard, a Motion to Reopen was filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen the case and thus proceedings were terminated against the Indian national. He was finally able to take a deep breath of relief. He joined a long list of clients who sought the help of Margaret W. Wong & Associates and achieved their dreams.(Back to Top)

Tanzanian married to US Citizen; we file to help his i-751 petition

Client is a native of Tanzania who obtained conditional permanent resident status based on her marriage to a U.S. citizen. Client filed an I-751 petition to remove conditions that was denied by USCIS and by an immigration judge. The client's then attorney timely filed notice of appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals but failed to file a brief in support of the appeal that was due by March of 2011. The client eventually contacted Margaret W. Wong & Assoc. Co., LPA for advice. It was then discovered that a brief had not been filed on the client's behalf. With the appeal still pending, a motion to accept a late filed brief was quickly filed along with a brief in support of the appeal that should have been filed by the prior attorney. DHS promptly filed a brief opposing our motion. However, after reviewing the filings, the Board of Immigration Appeals granted our request and accepted the brief a year and a half after it was due. The client now has the benefit of a persuasive brief in support of her appeal that is currently being considered by the Board.(Back to Top)

Chinese Woman Granted Waiver to Reunite with Husband in United States

It was a wonderful second marriage for two Chinese-Americans. They opened a restaurant and began their new life together. The husband is a U.S. citizen, but his wife had no status. When the husband's I-130 Petition for his wife was approved, she returned to China for her interview at the consulate. The consulate decided that the couple did not have enough proof of a valid marriage and it denied her visa. The husband returned to the U.S. and hired our firm to help. We worked with the husband to develop all the necessary proofs of a valid marriage. We also explained that because the wife was in the U.S. for over a year without status, she would have a 10-year bar to returning. However, we developed a thorough and compelling I-601 Waiver Application. Our clients' second I-130 interview was successful, and today, our client's wife received word from the consulate that her I-601 waiver application was granted. Our clients are reunited again and on their way back to their lawful home in the United States.(Back to Top)

Asian Man Gets Green Card After Two Deportation Orders

Our Client was ordered deported from the United States in 1999 and again in 2004. After he married a U.S. citizen and they had an approved I-130, he came to us hoping to find a way to get a green card. After using a Freedom of Information Act request to get all of his court records, we filed a Motion to Reopen the second case. We convinced the Immigration Court that the second case should have never been started, and the Court reopened and terminated it. Because our client was an "arriving alien" he was able to apply for a green card before USCIS. His green card interview was two weeks ago, and this week he received notice from the USCIS that it approved his green card.(Back to Top)

Companies hiring canadians (three stories)

1) After searching for qualified workers, the University found a coach that best fit the criteria they required for the position. However, the individual who the University wanted to recruit was a Canadian citizen and thus there were steps that had to be taken for the Canadian national to legally work in the United States. The University contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates to guide them through the process. The attorneys and staff members at the firm helped first file a Labor Condition Application to the Department of Labor which is to ensure the alien is being paid the minimum prevailing wage. Then Form I-129, Petition for Non-immigrant Worker, was filed for an H-1B visa. Through proper preparation and filing, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved the visa. The University was glad to add a great coach to their program. Margaret W. Wong & Associates were happy to assist the University in achieving its goals and bettering their program.

2) A company wanted to hire an individual who could help create the unique items that it sold. In its search, the company found a Canadian national who was perfect for their plans. However, the company needed guidance in recruiting this individual to be able to work in the United States. The company contacted the immigration law firm of Margaret W. Wong & Associates for assistance. The attorneys and staff members filed ETA-9035, Labor Condition Application, and after its approval, filed Form I-129, Petition for Non-immigrant Worker. Shortly, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved the company's petition and the Canadian citizen received an H-1B visa. The company joined a long list of other employers who have sought the services of Margaret W. Wong and Associates and have been completely satisfied with their experience.

3) A financial institution sought to employ a Canadian national in an economic analysis capacity. We recommended that the Canadian apply for a TN visa at the Canada-U.S. border. TN status is available for Canadian and Mexican nationals employed in certain professional positions listed in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). We prepared a TN visa application for the Canadian pursuant to the Economist category listed in NAFTA and he entered the United States without any problems. He was granted TN status for a one-year period, and was issued an I-94 to that effect.(Back to Top)

filipino brings wife to united States

A Philippine National wanted to bring his wife to the United States from his home country; however, he did not know how to accomplish this. He asked his friends and they told him to contact the immigration law firm of Margaret W. Wong & Associates. After a great consultation, the individual retained the firm to help him in his endeavors. The attorneys and staff members of the firm filed Form I-I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, on his behalf for his wife. Through proper filing, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved his petition. He was happy that his first step in bringing his wife to the U.S. went smoothly and was very happy with the help he received from Margaret W. Wong & Associates.(Back to Top)

hiring NON-IMMIGRANT workers (i-129) (six stories)

1) A manufacturing company wanted to hire an individual who was not a U.S. citizen to work. The company wanted the process to go smoothly and thus contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates for assistance. The attorneys and staff members of the firm filed Form I-129, Petition for Non-immigrant Worker, after the Labor Condition Application was approved by the U.S. Department of Labor. Shortly thereafter, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved the H-1B visa for the individual the company was petitioning. The employer understood that the many years of experience of Margaret W. Wong & Associates was an integral factor in making the complex immigration process seem not so complex.

2) A large company was in the market for engineers to work and develop products for their clients. The company had one such individual who was working for them under Optional Practical Training, however, OPT only lasts for one year. Thus the company contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates to help them retain the individual who already had experience working in the position. The attorney's and staff members filed a Labor Condition Application on the employer's behalf to attest that the employer would pay the prevailing wage and, upon LCA approval, Form I-129, Petition for Non-immigrant Worker, was filed. Shortly thereafter, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved the H-1B application for the individual the employer was petitioning. The experience of the firm in temporary work visas and employment based immigration was the deciding factor in the company choosing Margaret W. Wong & Associates to help them in their endeavors.

3) A company that specialized in medical services wanted to bring an individual from their affiliate in another country who was a manager or executive. A native of Mexico had the exact managerial experience that the company required thus the company wished to petition for him. The employer contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates for their assistance and expertise. Form I-129, Petition for Non-immigrant Worker, was filed for the Mexican national by the attorneys and staff members at the firm. Within a short period of time, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved the visa for the individual under the L-1A classification. L-1A is for managers and executives while L-1B is for persons with specialized knowledge. The employer was glad that their petition was approved and was very appreciative with the professionalism of the firm. The company joined a long list of employers who have consistently retained Margaret W. Wong & Associates for their immigration needs.

4) A devout South African National was a member of a church group who participated in many humanitarian efforts. While in South Africa, he became involved in many activities that were set up by a church in the United States. After seeing his skill and the passion he had for his faith, the church wanted to bring him to the U.S. to become an active member of their congregation. The church sought the help of Margaret W. Wong & Associates to guide them through the immigration process. The attorneys and staff members of the firm filed an I-129, Petition for Non-immigrant Worker, to get an R-1 Visa. The R-1 Visa is for persons in a religious occupation. Soon after, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved the church's petition. The church and the South African National were very happy to be able to work together in the United States. Margaret W. Wong & Associates were equally happy to help another one of their clients.

5) A Native of India was working on an H-1B visa in the United States. She received a job offer from another employer and wanted to work for that company. She didn't know how that would affect her immigration status and neither did the employer. The Indian National and employer contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates to guide them through the process. The attorneys and staff members of the firm first filed a Labor Conditions Application with the Department of Labor. Once the LCA was certified, they filed Form I-129, Petition for Non-immigrant Worker, for her new employer. Soon after, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved the petition. Both parties were extremely happy and so was Margaret W. Wong & Associates. The firm helped another individual and company come together.

6) A Chinese National wanted to become a permanent resident of the United States. However, he was a cautious individual and didn't want to take the chance that some issues might develop with his I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and thus he might fall out of status. So this individual contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates. The attorneys and staff members of the firm showed him that his employer could file for an extension on his current H-1B status while he applied for permanent residency. The Chinese National told his employer about what he had learned and they agreed to extend his H-1B. The attorneys and staff members at the firm filed a Labor Condition Application and Form I-129, Petition for Non-immigrant Worker, for the company on the Chinese National's behalf. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved the employer's petition and the client received the security he needed while applying to become a permanent resident.(Back to Top)

A Chinese lady hired our firm to research about the status of her Green card

According to our client, the application was done previously by her former attorney. After several phone calls and multiple requests, our office contacted the previous attorney and finally obtained copy of our client's file. Unfortunately, the I-485, application was never filed. The client hired our office to help her obtaining the Green Card. Our client was previously married to a USC citizen and she was currently divorced. Attorney Margaret Wong spoke to the client and after an extensive conversation; our client told Mrs. Wong that she was abused by her ex-husband. Attorney Mrs. Wong advised our client to file an I-360, Petition for Amerasian, widow(er) or special Immigrant. Our office filed the application I-360 on behalf of our client in August 2010. A RFE was received in June 2011, our attorneys worked with the client and together they filed the RFE response in September of the same year. A month later, our client received the great news that her I-360 application was approved. Our office immediately filed the applications for work authorization and Green Card. In April 2012, our client was scheduled for an interview with a USCIS officer; during the interview the officer recommended the case for approval. Our client received her Green card after ten days. She was very happy and grateful with our office, and especially with attorneys Margaret Wong and Weronika Costas.(Back to Top)

Returning Client filing permanent employment certification

An employer sought help for filing Form ETA 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, by contacting the immigration law firm of Margaret W. Wong & Associates. As a returning client, the large company had experienced success before with the firm and understood it was the firm's experience and dedication in employment matters that resulted in approvals. The attorneys and staff members of the firm placed the required ads, gained the required information, and filed ETA 9089. The approval from the Department of Labor took only two and a half months and now the company can quickly proceed to the next step in the process. The employer is seeking the help of Margaret W. Wong & Associates to help it file Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, and Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence and Adjust Status. Margaret W. Wong & Associates assisted the company in a professional manner and the company enjoyed its experience with the firm.(Back to Top)

asylum for chinese national fearing persecution

A native of China was in the United States and did not want to return to his home country. He feared the persecution that he might face. This individual did not know how or what he had to do to remain in this country thus he contacted the law firm of Margaret W. Wong & Associates. The attorneys and staff members at the firm helped prepare a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal. Asylum is requested by individuals who fear persecution in their home country because of their race, nationality, religion, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. After hard work and preparation, the Chinese national's asylum application was granted. The firm was happy to assist this individual in gaining protection in the United States. Soon after his grant of asylum, the native of China asked the law firm to help him apply for Permanent Residency. Thus the lawyers and staff members went back to work for this client and once again helped him achieve another goal. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved his Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and now the Chinese national is a lawful permanent resident in the United States.(Back to Top)

two i-130 for family 

We successfully got two I-130 family petitions approved, after they had been pending for over a year with USCIS. The Petitioner, a US citizen, filed the petitions for her parents and her younger sister, who were in removal proceedings. Attorney Costas represented the parents and sister in Immigration Court, successfully pushed USCIS to approve the I-130's, and negotiated with the government attorney to terminate proceedings of the parents so that they pursue adjustment of status with USCIS. Because the US citizen's sister is not yet eligible to adjust status, we had to follow a different strategy with her. We negotiated with the government attorney in Immigration Court to administratively close her proceedings and submitted a written request for prosecutorial discretion. The government agreed to administratively close the younger sister's removal proceedings and she can now remain in the U.S. while she finishes college and waits for her time to seek adjustment of status.(Back to Top)

proving entry into the us for permanent residency 

Client came to us after her I-485 adjustment of status interview, which had not gone very well. Client entered the United States without inspection before 2000 and is eligible to adjust status under INA § 245(i). However, after her interview with USCIS, the officer issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) her application because he did not believe there was enough evidence to prove that she was in the U.S. on the required date to qualify under 245(i). Attorney Costas prepared a response to the NOID and worked with the client's family to prepare detailed affidavits to prove how the client entered the U.S. Four months later, USCIS granted our client's I-485 and she is now a lawful permanent resident.(Back to Top)

chinese family petitions to receive green cards (FIVE stories) 

1) A Chinese lady hired our firm in March 2011 to file a petition for her parents. Our client's mother had a legal entry to the United States, she came with a tourist visa and overstay. The client's father in the other hand had an illegal entry and had used another person's passport to entry in the United States. We filed a Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FOIA) request for our client's father at the end of March. USCIS sent us a response by the end of October 2011 after several calls and letters that we sent to push this FOIA. In November, we submitted both applications for our client's parents; those applications included forms I-130/I-485/I-765/I-864 and I-864A. A RFE was received in March 2012, which was filed during the same month. Our clients were scheduled for an interview and Attorney William Low talked to the clients and prepared them for their meeting with USCIS. Our client's parents received their green cards in within a week from the day of their interview. Clients were very happy and grateful to Attorney Margaret W. Wong, William Low and paralegal Yolanda Chen.

2) Our firm was retained in December 2011 by a client from China who wished to obtain his residence in the United States. She had come to the Country under a C1 transit visa and overstay. She also had an I-130 approved petition from her brother dated on April 1995. Her quota was opened and our office filed applications I-485/I-485A/I765 and I-864 on behalf of our client. We received the interview notice for April 2012, attorney William Low met her and her brother and gave them a detailed preparation. During the interview everything went perfectly and the USCIS officer recommended for approval. Our client received her green card the next week and she contacted us to express her happiness and grateful with our office, especially to attorney Margaret Wong and William Low.

3) In July 2009, a Chinese national retained our firm to get her green card. She came to the US in 2000 and was ordered removed in 2004, her BIA appeal was dismissed in 2005. Her husband was an LPR, who filed an I-130 Petition for her in March 2001, which was denied in 2004. In October 2009, we filed a new I-130 Petition, which was approved in February 2010. In March 2010, we filed an I-290B Motion to Reconsider for the old I-130, which was denied. In July, we filed the I-485 Application to Adjust Status as well as I-485A to allow her to adjust status under 245(i). In September 2009, we filed a Motion to Reopen to the BIA and a Motion to Stay before her I-485 Interview so that the immigration officials would not detain our client at her interview. In September 2010, the I-485 was denied because USCIS claimed she was not 245(i) and her current priority date was not current making her ineligible to adjust status. The following month, we filed an I-290B Motion to Reconsider for the I-485 denial. Throughout the next two years, we pushed USCIS for a decision on the I-290B. Finally in January 2012, we received notice from USCIS that the I-485 application was reopened. In April 2012, our client received her green card. She is ecstatic with the hard work and perseverance of our firm.

4)A United States Citizen wanted to petition her husband from China to become a permanent resident in the United States. She was having trouble understanding the process so she contacted Margaret W. Wong & Associates. The attorneys and staff members of the firm guided her through the process and filed an I-130, Petition for Alien Relative. Through proper preparation of the filing, her I-130 Petition was approved by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The attorneys and staff members of the firm were very happy to assist her in taking the first step to get her husband permanent residency.

5) A Chinese couple interviewed with Mrs. Margaret Wong in December 2011, and they explained their situation. The husband came to the United States as an arrival alien in 1999. Their former attorney filed an I-130 and I-485 package on July 2011. They went to the I-485 interview on December 2011. During the interview Immigration Custom Enforcement detained him and then released him. The husband was put under order of supervision. The Immigration Officer issued a Request for Evidence Notice to them. Mrs. Margaret Wong decided to take their case and helped them to resolve their complicated situation. Our Attorneys Francis Fungsang and paralegal Yolanda Chen worked hard on filing the response to USCIS in within the next two days. Attorney Weronika Costas prepared and filed a Motion to Reopen on December 29, 2011. Less than a month later that our office took this case, our client received his green card approval. Husband and wife are very happy and grateful with our team.(Back to Top)

renewing 10 year green card before christmas vacation

Our client contacted us regarding his urgent need to renew his Green Card which was about to expire in a few weeks. The client held a 10 yr, renewable, green card. He had failed to notice that the card was about to expire and only became aware of the problem when he and his wife began discussing the idea that he might become a US citizen. Failure to renew the green card may have caused some unnecessary complications in this process. Our staff quickly processed the paperwork, assured our client's wife that her husband would still be able to go on vacation with her over Christmas, and would be able to pursue their dream for him to become a US citizen. The I-90 renewal was approved and our client is now in possession of his new Green Card. Our staff are now working with him to timely file his application to become a US citizen.(Back to Top)

25 years of hard work and patience, our Malaysian client received his green card, less than four months after coming to us

What a smile of relief! Over the years, he has built a successful business, brought his son and daughter to the US, and watched his son marry a USC and get his own green card. Meanwhile, our client himself never received lawful immigrant status. In 2005, a travel agent helped him get work authorization but may have misrepresented our client's immigration history - claiming relief under LULAC and the 1986 amnesty law, and possibly making our client inadmissible due to fraud. Finally, our client's son became a citizen. In January 2012, we filed an I-130 Petition (parent of USC adult child). At the last minute we helped our client develop the paperwork for a new joint financial sponsor, and at his interview at the end of April 2012, we helped him avoid any charges of inadmissibility due to his former travel agent's possibly fraudulent application. Finally, our client can petition to bring his wife to the United States.(Back to Top)

Indian Client's Case Reopened After BIA Dismisses Appeal

This case exemplifies why it is so important to use a highly qualified immigration law firm. Our After this client was put into removal proceedings before the Immigration Court, he moved within the same town. He did not write to the Court and give his new address. The Court sent his hearing notice to the old address, and it misspelled the name of the town. Our client failed to appear at his hearing. The Court ordered him removed, and ICE arrested him. Our client hired a lawyer to file a Motion to Reopen his case. The Court denied the motion. Our client hired another lawyer to file an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The appeal was dismissed. Both the Immigration Judge and the BIA pointed out that our client was at fault because he did not give the Court his new address. Our client brought us his case in September 2011. We filed Freedom of Information Act requests to get all of his records from the Court and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. When we fully understood his case, we explained what documents we needed from our client, we helped our client do an affidavit, and we filed with the BIA a new Motion to Reopen. The BIA agreed to vacate the Immigration Court's removal order and motion denial and to vacate its own order dismissing our client's appeal. Our client no longer is subject to deportation He can now go to Immigration Court and apply for immigration benefits.(Back to Top)

b-2 visitor visa extension for chinese family 

In January 2012, a family from China retained our firm in order to extend their B-2 Visitor Visas. The family came to the U.S. in August 2011 after the death of the father's sister. Our client was left in charge of her estate, which was extremely tricky due to the size and tax implications of the estate. We worked together with the family's estate lawyer to gather the necessary documents to prove the extension of the visitor's visas was necessary. The I-539 Applications to Extend Non-immigrant Status were filed in February 2012, one week before the family's current visas were set to expire. The B-2 Extensions were approved in early April 2012 and gave the family an additional six months of non-immigrant status in the United States. Attorney Francis Fungsang handled the case.(Back to Top)

adam walsh act: difficult i-130 approval

We successfully got a difficult I-130 petition approved, after it had been pending for nearly three years with USCIS. We helped our U.S. citizen client file an I-130 petition on behalf of his wife in 2009. Pursuant to the Adam Walsh Act, however, USCIS found that our client may be ineligible to petition for his wife based on his past criminal conviction for "kidnapping" and "criminal sexual conduct." Because the case was being processed as an Adam Walsh case, the processing of the petition was more complicated and lengthy than regular I-130s. Our office diligently followed up with USCIS and pushed for a decision. Simultaneously, we worked with the Detroit Immigration Court to obtain continuances for our client's wife, who was in removal proceedings, in order to buy time for her I-130 to be approved. Finally, in 2011, USCIS sent us a Notice of Intent to Deny. We worked hard to prepare a response to establish that the client did not fall under the Adam Walsh Act and that he does not pose a risk to his wife. We filed our response in October 2011. In March 2012, our client's I-130 was approved and his wife will now be able to apply for lawful permanent resident status.(Back to Top)

appeals and denials to avoid deportation: Venezuelan family now with work permits

A women from Venezuela and her family retained our firm in late 2010. They had filed for asylum with a previous attorney but their application was denied by the Immigration Judge. When they came to us, their BIA appeal was pending. The BIA appeal was denied in late December 2010. In January 2011, we filed for a Petition for Review to the 11th Circuit. The family was an Order of Supervision so we filed a Motion for Stay of Deportation in May 2011. The DHS attorneys opposed the motion and it was consequently denied in June. In November, the 11th Circuit Petition was also denied. The clients received a phone call that they had to report to immigration and if they had nothing pending, they would be removed from the U.S. In mid-November we filed a Request for Deferred Action before their Order of Supervision. They were able to report in December 2011 without any problems and were given a new report date in late February. The day after their latest Order of Supervision, the family's Request for Deferred Action was approved until March 2013. Throughout this time, the family is eligible to renew their work permits. The clients are extremely thankful that they are allowed to remain in the United States without fear of deportation for the next year. Attorney Scott Bratton and paralegal Fabiola Cini handled the case.(Back to Top)

A COLOMBIAN national victim of abuse by her United States Citizen husband

She wished to be free from her relationship but didn't know how. She was not a resident or citizen of the United States and so she thought she would face deportation. She had a young child to take care of who she couldn't leave with her abusive husband. No one can blame her for that. Like a great mother she feared too much for the safety of her baby. However, all hope was not lost. The United States has enacted the Violence Against Women Act which allows a battered or abused spouse or child of a United States Citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident to self-petition for Permanent Residence without their abusive spouse or parent. The attorneys and staff members at Margaret W. Wong & Associates helped her file an I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, and then an I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. They were eager to help her become free from her troubled relationship; a life without waking up every day scared for herself and her child. Her I-360 Petition was approved and soon after her I-485 Application was approved as well. Helping her achieve something she only dreamt of was a sincere pleasure of the attorneys and staff members at Margaret W. Wong & Associates. The delight in her voice was truly great to hear.(Back to Top)

LPR for husband and wife from china

A husband and wife from China sought the services of Margaret W. Wong & Associates to help them become Lawful Permanent Residents of the United States. On their behalf, we filed two I-485 Applications to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status which were both approved. The couple felt at peace with the knowledge that our attorneys and staff members were hard at work for them. That ease of mind is critical in what can be a complex process. Margaret W. Wong & Associates made it very simple for them. Now they are enjoying life in the United States as a happily married couple.(Back to Top)

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.(Back to Top)

Indian nationalS becomes lawful permanent residentS (TWO STORIES)

1) An Indian National became a Lawful Permanent Resident on February 13, 2012. Margaret W. Wong & Associates made sure that he was informed of every step in the process. He was prepped for the I-485 Application to Adjust Permanent Resident Status interview taken by an officer at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. With us there, he was more comfortable because he knew that he had someone who truly cared about his situation to advocate for him. He was approved and thus became another client whose wishes were realized.

2) An Indian National and his wife a U.S. Citizen retained our office in October 2011. The couple hired us to process the green card application for the husband. Our legal assistant Yolanda Chen contacted our clients and gave them a list of documents for this type of application. Clients provided us all the supporting documentation and we filed applications I-130, I-765 and I-485 for our clients by the middle of October. USCIS sent us a notice requesting more information, our legal assistant Yolanda Chen submitted the information requested within a week from the notice was received. Our clients were notified for interview on January 24, 2012. Attorney Francis Fungsang prepared our clients for the coming interview. Even though the USCIS officer gave our clients an extensive interview they received an approval recommendation without any problems. Husband and wife were very happy to receive the green card and they already referred us to their friends for any immigration needs.(Back to Top)

natural disasters lead to temporary protective status for central american

An individual from Central America wished to stay in the United States because the conditions in his country were unfit for return. His country had been devastated by natural disasters. We told him about Temporary Protective Status, which allows a person to stay in the United States for a certain period of time. The country and the amount of time a person is allowed to stay are designated by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. We filed the I-821, Application for Temporary Protective Status on his behalf, which was approved. He can now rest at ease knowing that he can remain in the United States and return once his country recovers.(Back to Top)

Pakistani with criminal conviction 

A native and citizen of Pakistan has been a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. for fifteen years. She plead guilty to Theft by Deception, an aggravated felony, which resulted in the issuance of an NTA, mandatory detention and limited relief from removal. The woman retained MWW & Associates to assist with the negative immigration consequences of her criminal conviction. A Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea and Vacate Conviction was filed with the criminal court. The Motion was denied without a hearing. An appeal was filed and, after oral arguments, the appellate court remanded the case for a hearing on the Motion. At the Motion Hearing, the evidence showed that the woman's prior criminal attorney gave erroneous advice as to the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. The Judge granted the Motion and the woman's conviction was vacated. She will soon be released after spending eighteen months in detention.(Back to Top)

GERMAN CLIENT WITH L VISAS (two stories)

1) A German client hired us to process his L-1B visa and L-2 visa for his spouse on September 12, 2007. It only took 2 weeks to receive their L-1B and L2, which were good for 3 years. After 3 years, we applied I-129 (L-1B Extention) and I-539 ( L-2 for his wife), and they were approved within 2 weeks. After several years of spending his life in the United States, he decided to stay. So, he asked us to process his green card application. He was working as a consultant at Snap on Business Solutions. We helped him to file I-140, I-485, I-765, and I-131 for him and his wife on August 23, 2011. The client was called for fingerprint on Sept 27, 2011. About 4 months later, the client and his wife received 10 year green card in the mail. This case was approved without RFE, and attorney Lori Pinjuh and Francis Fungsang handled the case.

2) 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.(Back to Top)

motion to stay granted to chinese couple

A Chinese National and wife a U.S. Legal Permanent Resident hired our firm on December 2010. Our client was under removal proceeding and our team filed a Motion for Stay of removal that was successfully granted on January 2011. Our client had a legal entry and his wife became a U.S. citizen in February 2011; all these facts helped to our client to be eligible to adjust status. On June 2011 we filed the I-485 application and during this process we filed all supporting documentation as well. Our Attorney Scott Bratton and client went to the Individual Hearing in January 2012 and our case was granted. Mr. S is very grateful for our dedicated support during these past two years of team work.(Back to Top)

final order of deportation eliminated for chinese client 

We were retained in December 2010 by a Chinese client who wished to obtain his green card. He arrived to the United States at age 17 and was paroled into the country. He applied for asylum, which was denied and he was given a Final Order of Deportation. He remained in the country and had since married a U.S. Citizen. In January 2011, we filed an I-130/I-485/I-765 on behalf of the client and his wife. An interview was scheduled in June, which was attended by attorney William Low. The immigration officer said an I-601 Waiver was needed since the client was over 16 years old when he presented false documents at the airport. The waiver was filed less than two weeks later. In late July 2011, the client's green card application was approved and he was now a Lawful Permanent Resident. In early August, we filed a Motion to Reopen and a Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings since the client had adjusted status. DHS did not oppose the motion and the BIA officially lifted terminated proceedings in mid January 2012, eliminating our client's Final Order of Deportation. Attorney Low was assisted by the hard work of caseworker Yolanda Chen.(Back to Top)

Uzbekistan client renews B-2 Visa within a month

On December 2011 an Uzbekistan National came to our office, she had a B-2 visa that expires officially the next day. She hired our firm to file the B-2 visa extension on her behalf. We had to prepare the complete package right away and our Attorney Weronika Costas worked hard to file this application on the same day. Client received her approval within a month and now she is approved to stay legally in the United States until June 2012.(Back to Top)

indian couple receives green cards for new year

A couple from India retained us to apply for the green card on May 2008. His previous status was H1B, and he had to change his work before applying his green card. So, we filed PERM for his new job. After it was approved, we had to wait for his quota. Finally, we applied I-485 (the green card application) for them on September 1, 2011. After 2 weeks, they received the fingerprint notices. I-765 and I-131 were approved on October 7, 2011. The clients received the best New Year gift that they received their green card on December 30, 2011.(Back to Top)

Chinese client hired us to process his green card

He came to the United States without inspection, and he married with a US citizen. They had 2 USC children, and the client applied green card under 245(i) with his previous attorney on August 2, 2006. USCIS did not respond him, and he decided to hire Margaret Wong & Associates. We filed a mandamus action in federal court on October 10, 07. But USCIS denied his I-485 on November 8. So, Attorney Scott Bratton filed Motion to Reconsider for him in early December of 2007. It was granted 9 month later, and the client successfully received his green card.(Back to Top)

employment authorization and 10 years cancellation for mexican

On March 03, 2011, our firm was retained by a client from Mexico. Mr. V. had been in the United States for more than ten years and he wanted to get a work permit authorization. We explained to him the process for the 10yrs. Cancellation case and he decided to start his application as soon as possible. The form I-765, application for employment authorization was filed on September of 2011. Our client received his Employment Authorization Card on December 19, 2011. Mr. V. 10yrs. Cancellation case is still pending and now he is waiting on the approval for his I-485, application to adjust to permanent resident status.(Back to Top)

chinese client married in jail then receives green card

We were retained by a Chinese client on Feb. 10, 2011. We met with the client out at a jail because he was initially picked up by ICE and sent to the jail. He came to the US on April 12, 1994. He had an old case back in 1995 which was denied in January 1995, and he had a final order of deportation. At the time we met, he was single, but he had a US citizen child. He was planning to get married with his US citizen girlfriend. He had to serve 90-days in jail, so we helped him to get married in jail. He finally got married with his USC girlfriend on Feb. 24, and we filed I-130 and I-485 on the marriage-based GC case on March 03. Two weeks later, we received RFE from USCIS and client's fingerprint notice. We sent RFE on April 29, and he was called up for I-485 interview in September, 2011. On December 27, 2011, he received conditional green card that is valid through Dec. 2013. We are currently waiting for filing I-751 that is eligible for him to file in August 2013. He is very excited that he can stay in the US with his lovely family.(Back to Top)

Jamaican grandfathered 

Our office was retained by a Jamaican individual who wanted to get permanent residency on the basis of being grandfathered under 245(i) by her mother's sister who had an approved I-130 with a priorty date from 1985. Our office filed the I-485/765 on November 30, 2010. The alien also had an approved I-130 from her mother which was the underlying immigrant petition. The alien was interviewed at the local USCIS office that had jurisdiction over the case on May 11, 2011. The local USCIS office then took time to review the matter, asked for additional information and then approved the case on December 29, 2011.(Back to Top)

zimbabwean marries us citizen now legal permanent resident

In late March 2011, an out-of-status client from Cleveland retained our firm in order to obtain employment authorization and legal permanent residency. A native of Zimbabwe, he had been living in the United States since 1999 and was married to a US Citizen. We filed his applications on June 9, 2011 with thorough legal arguments and documentation. His employment authorization was granted two months later. Shortly thereafter, our client had his immigration interview on August 26, 2011 , which was professionally prepared for and attended by our attorney. Less than two weeks later, our client became legal permanent resident! Senior paralegal, Jackie Tong, and Francis Fungsang, attorney, worked on this case.(Back to Top)

jordanian physician usmle success

Our Jordanian client was a practicing physician who successfully completed and passed all the steps of the USMLE process. He worked at a medical college where he was in charge of supervising residents in both the hospital and ambulatory settings, as well as directing seminars and tutorials for medical students. Our client contacted us in order to help him with his H1-B visa application. In light of his professional expertise in the medical field, we deemed it best to petition to not only allow him to continue working in the U.S., but to become a permanent resident as well. Despite the amount of work involved in filing a total of four different visa applications, including a green card application, our commitment to providing the best service possible did not falter, and within two months, we were able to successfully obtain a green card for our client, and he was able to continue to instill the knowledge and skills he had acquired over his career into the minds of the doctors of tomorrow. Foreign-born physicians now make up approximately 23 percent of the total U.S. physician count (Source: AMA, International Medical Graduates in the U.S.) These immigrant doctors are critical to the U.S. healthcare system, and the overall wellbeing of the country. The medical expertise they bring with them from abroad enriches our understanding of the subject and generates new ideas with regards to innovative practices and procedures. In light of this, it becomes clear that we cannot hamper a doctor's ability to carry out their responsibilities as a physician, whether they are an American citizen or an immigrant to this great country.(Back to Top)

Macedonian waiting for his green card

A client from Macedonia hired our firm in December 2008. The client had 245(i) based on I-130 which was filed in 1998 by his previous attorney. The client's previous attorney came late on the date of IH, so Judge rescheduled his IH in October 2009. The client also received voluntary deportation (VD) notice in the past. We filed FOIA with EOIR and DHS in October 2008 to receive copy of his past records. Then, we prepared his I-485 and I-765 and filed them on October 02, 2009. Since there was a VD issue, we decided to file a Joint Motion to Terminate to Chicago court, and we filed it in April, 2010. Six month later, the Chicago Immigration Court granted the Motion to Terminate Proceeding. He has done his biometric, and he is now waiting for his green card. Attorney Scott Bratton handled this case.(Back to Top)

yemen national work authorization

Client is Yemen National and retained our firm for his I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization). I-765 was filed on May 25,2011 and was approved on November 14, 2011. Even though USCIS sent us an RFE (request for additional evidence) our attorneys ensured to respond to USCIS in order to get a favorable decision.(Back to Top)

motion to reopen mexican case 

We were retained by a client from Mexico on Aug. 26, 2011. He entered to the U.S. in 2005 without inspection. He was caught by police and he was sent to jail for 10 days. He did not receive any hearing notice, so he did not show up to the court on his hearing date. Finally, he received NTA. We filed FOIA to court on Sept. 23, 2011, and received documents a week later. We carefully reviewed his case, and filed MTR on Nov. 10, 2011. The case was reopened on December 05, 2011. Attorney Weronika Costas and Chela Marquez handled the case.(Back to Top)

asylum and permanent residency for mexican client

A client from Mexico hired our firm to file an asylum. We immediately filed I-589 on November 06, 2007. Six month later, we filed EAD based on C8 (asylum pending as of 11/2007). On June 2, 2008, NTA was issued, and the client went to see individual Judge for a couple of times. We filed EOIR-42B, the application for Cancellation in March 09, and then, we filed I-485 on April 06, 2009. Two years later, he received welcome notice from USCIS.(Back to Top)

bosnian files for asylum while working 

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.(Back to Top)

Canadian 7 year old seeking to stay 

A Canadian citizen visited to the United States when he was 7 years old to see his mother. His mother wanted him to remain with her in the US. 10 years later, he showed our office and hired us to obtain his green card. We filed I-485, I-765, and I-131 on January 6, 2011, and two weeks later, USCIS sent fingerprint notice. We received his work permit and advance parole on March 21, 2011. Attorney Francis Fungsang, who handled the case, went to I-485 interview for our client on June 2, 2011, and he received his green card a month later.(Back to Top)

chinese citizen released from jail on order of supervision

Our office was retained on March 2, 2011 by a Chinese citizen in order to release him from jail. The previous day, the client was arrested and placed in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Our client had originally entered the U.S. in 1993 in order to pursue asylum. He was placed into exclusion hearings and never appealed or filed a Motion to Reopen his case. On May 24, 2011 our firm sent a 90 day review to an officer at Cleveland ICE asking for his release. On May 31, 2011 we were notified that the client the 90 day review was granted and the client was released that same day under an Order of Supervision.(Back to Top)

corporate client tn visa for mexican engineer

One of our corporate clients sought to bring one of their employees, an engineer from Mexico, to work in the United States. Pursuant to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), we petitioned to have get a Trade-Nafta (TN) visa for the employee, who had been so far indispensable to the company in their South American operations. We were able to successfully secure a TN visa for the engineer, so that he could continue his work for the company, but now be free to also do so in the United States for a three year period.(Back to Top)

work permit protects chinese husband and wife who had to conceal her pregnancy 

Our Chinese client came to the U.S. through a snake head in Mexico. She was 22 years old when she became pregnant, and her boyfriend was only 21 years old, which was not old enough to marry in accordance with Chinese marriage laws. Therefore, they could not marry one another, nor could they keep their child. The couple managed to conceal our client's pregnancy from the Chinese authorities for approximately 5 months. Then, one night, three officials came into our client's home unannounced, abducted her, and sent her to the hospital for a forced abortion. She was picked up by her family a couple hours later. Because of the discrimination our client faced in the eyes of the townspeople she once considered to be her friends, her family sent her to her grandmother's home to rest and recover. Feeling that she had lost hope for any kind of future in her native country, our client escaped to the U.S. Despite finally finding freedom, our client was still troubled by the traumatic experience of losing her child. It was only thanks to her revitalized belief in God and the support of her congregation was she able to come to terms with her loss. While in the U.S., our client had two other children with her boyfriend, and eventually, married him. We were able to prevent our client's immediate removal from the U.S. by obtaining a worker's permit for her, which will allow her to remain in the country for another year. During this time, we have begun to take the necessary measures in order to successfully petition for her green card.(Back to Top)

CEO software company petitions for l-1b visa for employee

The CEO of a software development company that specializes in educational technology asked us to help him obtain an L-1B visa for his key software developers working in the company’s design and development facility overseas. This employee holds a Master of Science degree in Interactive Multimedia, and was essential for the company’s proprietary products. The CEO sought to transfer this employee from their facility overseas to their U.S. based operation in order to train U.S. software developers who are tasked with providing customer service to any potential troubleshooting that may occur with the company’s proprietary products. The employee was also to be tasked with developing new programs and updating the company’s educational products. This was a very challenging, but important, case. It was difficult to determine, initially, whether the employee fit better into L-1A or L-1B status, and there was worry over whether the company would be able to gather the necessary documents in time to get the employee to the US when he needed to be here. The company’s growth was contingent on this specific employee’s experience and knowledge in the field, and without him the company would be completely unable to effectively initiate the update and expansion of their software. In light of these circumstances, we accepted the case, and after working with the client to determine which visa to petition for on behalf of the employee, we were able to smoothly guide the client through the L-1B petition process. This meant working with the very busy CEO in order to gather all of the necessary information and supporting evidence. We provided a persuasive argument for an L-1B visa on our client’s behalf and got the petition promptly approved. We were happy to help the company achieve success with a petition for the employee’s L-1B visa, and thereby allow the company to continue its growth and development with its most indispensable employee.(Back to Top)

T Visas for chinese victims of human trafficking (two stories)

1) One of our clients, a Chinese national, was a victim of human trafficking and received a T-Visa from the US government. She was underage when she entered the United States, and her mother, father and brother were still in China. Attorney Jason Lorenzon filed the appropriate visa application for T-Visas which were approved very quickly for the father and the brother. The mother’s visa was held up and eventually denied due to a service error. Mr. Lorenzon filed the appropriate motion to reopen and even refilled the T-visa application, after several weeks, the USCIS approved the visa for our client’s mother. Now the family is looking forward to unification thanks to the persistence and efforts of Mr. Lorenzon and our team.

2) 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(Back to Top)

Hardship Waiver for indian client filed with mumbai consulate 

We helped an Indian client living in Illinois get a hardship waiver for her husband. She is now a U.S. citizen, and he would be eligible for an immigration visa accept that he got caught trying to use a fake passport to enter the U.S. four years ago. Because he intentionally misrepresented himself to get an immigration benefit, he is permanently inadmissible to the U.S. – unless he gets an “extreme hardship waiver.” Our client’s first attorney was unsuccessful getting an I-601 hardship waiver approved. This client hired our firm in late May 2010. After developing detailed medical evidence, we filed a waiver request with the Mumbai Consulate in November 2010. We convinced USCIS that our client would suffer extreme hardship if she stayed in the U.S. without her husband or if she returned to India to live with his family. He may now enter the U.S. and get his green card. The very happy couple received the waiver in April 2011.(Back to Top)

mexican removal order rescinded because notice sent to wrong address- case reopened

We helped a Mexican client in Ohio get her final removal order reopened and rescinded. Eight years ago, she was picked up and issued a Notice to Appear charging her with being removable. While she was waiting for a trial, she visited family in Mexico and married her husband. She never received her hearing notice and she did not show up for it. She was ordered removed “in absentia.” We filed a Motion to Reopen with the Immigration Court in February 2011 arguing that the Court sent her hearing notice to the wrong address. In April 2011, the Court agreed to reopen her case.(Back to Top)

Removal order rescinded for malaysian client married to us citizen

We helped a Malaysian client living in New York get her final removal order rescinded so that she can get her green card through her U.S. citizen husband. Ten years ago she paid an immigration agency to help her get work authorization. She did not know they were crooked. The agency fabricated an employment visa application and used a Miami address. They did not tell our client what they were doing. They took her money, and the Miami Immigration Court ordered her removed without her being present. We filed a Motion to Reopen with the Miami Immigration Court in July 2010. The Court moved very slowly, but in December 2010, the Court finally agreed to rescind her removal order and transfer her case to New York so that a NY Immigration Judge could give her a green card.(Back to Top)

Chinese client proceeding directly to citizenship after rescinded removal order

We helped a young Chinese woman living in New York get her final removal order rescinded so that she can get her citizenship immediately. At her citizenship interview, she learned that she had a final removal order in Puerto Rico where she had visited an immigration attorney way back in 1995. She had applied for work authorization, USCIS had denied her, and the Immigration Court in Puerto Rico ordered her removed in absentia. She never knew. In December 2010, we filed a motion with the Immigration Judge to rescind her removal order and reopen her case. After he reopened her case in February 2011, we filed another motion to terminate the case entirely. Two weeks later, the IJ agreed, and our client is now proceeding directly to citizenship.(Back to Top)

Chinese chef in New York victim of immigration fraud

He learned that he had a final removal order against him dating to 2003 when he filed an Application to get his green card. After we filed a Freedom of Information Act request for him, we learned that back in 2005 he had paid an immigration agency $600 to get him a work authorization. They practiced law without a license, used fake addresses, made a fraudulent visa application in his name, and never told him that he had been ordered to appear in court. When our client did not attend his hearing, the Immigration Judge ordered him removed in absentia. In July 2010, we filed a motion with the Immigration Court arguing that our client had been the victim of immigration fraud. In August 2010, the Court agreed and rescinded our client’s removal order and reopened his case so he could adjust his status.(Back to Top)

Lebanese national work authorization

A Lebanese National applied for a work authorization document. The filing fee for this document is normally $340.00. Due to the sensitive circumstances of the case, our team requested a waiver for the filing fee. USCIS granted our request and accepted the filing of the work authorization application.(Back to Top)

motion to reconsider client's case

Our client’s adjustment of status application was recently denied by USCIS. Our client was a derivative on his wife’s case. She was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 and her case was approved. However, our client’s application was denied because it was determined that he previously obtained a conditional green card by a fraudulent marriage (his I-751 based on this marriage had been denied). Our client hired us to file a motion to reconsider. We prepared the motion and argued that there had been no previous finding of marriage fraud, that the prior marriage was not fraudulent, and that a denial of an I-751 is not a finding of marriage fraud. Within one month of filing the motion, the case was reopened and our client’s adjustment of status application was approved. Scott Bratton represented our client for his motion to reconsider.(Back to Top)

Attorney Jason Lorenzon was successful in attaining a non-immigrant visa waiver for a Canadian National

Our client had significant criminal issues relating to his younger days. He had convictions for drug possession, stealing and a whole list of other unlawful activities. Due to these activities, the drug use took a massive toll on his body. He required the medical assistance of specialist doctors in the United States. Mr. Lorenzon also encouraged our client to receive a pardon from the Canadian Government. Once all of this was completed, Mr. Lorenzon filed the necessary applications and had our client go to a port of entry on the U.S. Canada/Border for filing. Mr. Lorenzon spoke regularly with the officers to make sure that the Customs and Border Patrol would be ready and able to help our client when he arrived. Once the application was filed, the CBP officers then sent it to a central processing location. Mr. Lorenzon kept in constant contact with the CBP Office responsible for granting waivers. During the pendency of our client’s application, Mr. Lorenzon also was successful in attaining advance parole as to permit our client to come to the United States so our client could see his doctors regularly. Mr. Lorenzon would be available on weekends to ensure that our client could fly to the United States on a Saturday or Sunday to see his doctor on a Monday morning. After several months, the waiver was approved and our client can enter the United States for bona fid personal reasons as a tourist!(Back to Top)

Immigrant investor i-526

We were retained by an immigrant investor wanting to petition himself for an I-526 for his investing and building of hotels in the eastern part of the United States. The immigrant investor is a Canadian national and made substantial investments exceeding $1 Million into his new commercial enterprise. We filed for the I-526 to USCIS on August 18, 2010. USCIS worked fast and issued an approval on February 14, 2011. The I-526 petition is employment based 5th preference and there are no visa retrgressions in this category. The immigrant investor will be able to get a green card without any wait. We were very pleased to get this this case approved.(Back to Top)

employment authorization for mexican national who helped with criminal investigation

A Mexican National who helped the US government in a criminal investigation was placed in deportation proceedings. She has an approved I-140 immigrant visa petition and is 245(i) eligible. She has a I-485 adjustment of status application pending with the immigration court. During the pendency of this application and since most immigration courts have a one to two year back log, our team filed a work authorization card. With this benefit, our client can work in the United States, acquire a social security card and renew a validly issued state 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! Attorney Jason Lorenzon is overseeing this case.(Back to Top)

Where to go when the war for obtaining a legal status is brought to BIA and circuit court?

You have to risk going too far to discover just how far you can really go. What would you do when your case is dismissed by BIA, remanded by the Second Circuit, dismissed again by BIA, and currently pending with the Second Circuit? Mr. Y came to the United States in 1994. Since then he has been struggling obtaining a legal status, and meanwhile constantly suffering from worries of being deported and separated from his beloved wife and 3 minor U.S. citizen children. People might think with an approved I-130 filed before April 30, 2001, the said 245(i), an alien can obtain status smoothly. The fact is things are never that smooth. Though Mr. Y is statutorily eligible to adjust, there are no regulations that prohibit Immigration Court, or BIA from holding your case history against you. Due to inefficient counsel’s assistant, Mr. Y accepted voluntary departure in May, 1996. Thereafter he continued to stay in the U.S. He violated the law because he failed to leave the U.S. on time. He did not exercise due diligence because he also failed to appeal the Immigration Judge’s decision or file the motion to reopen timely. The severe consequence was his motion to reopen filed in September, 2005 was denied by Judge, and appeal was dismissed by BIA in March, 2006, to which his I-130 approval petitioned by his U.S. citizen wife could not bring him a smooth avenue. After careful comparison and consideration, Mr. Y retained our office in desperate situation. Our office did extraordinary things because we had the confidence and took the risks. We filed petition to review with the Second Circuit. The case was remanded to BIA in August, 2006 but was dismissed by BIA again. We then filed the 2nd petition to review with the Second Circuit. While the case was still pending with the Second Circuit, we filed the joint motion to reopen with DHS. We won again! DHS joined our request recently. The conclusion is clear: never be desperate; find an extraordinary attorney who can fight and knows all the avenues to fight to help you. The case was handled by Scott Bratton, Head of Litigation and Appellate Practice, Listed in the Best Lawyers in America 2010 Edition and Ohio Super Lawyers Rising Star and Jason Lorenzon, senior attorney, named 2011 Rising Star in Super Lawyers.(Back to Top)

i-131 for bangladeshi's advanced parole

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.(Back to Top)

criminal convictions from canadian youth pardoned for permission to travel 

Our Client, a Canadian national was not admissible to the United States due to several criminal convictions from his youth. He also received a pardon from the Canadian Government. Our firm has filed a Non-immigrant visa waiver application which is still pending and our client desperately needed to enter the United States to see his doctor. He is under medical care of a physician in the United States who cares for him regularly. Our client had a reaction to one of the experimental drugs and the doctor needed to see him immediately. Attorney Jason Lorenzon faxed over a request on Friday night to the Toronto Pre-clearance Customs and Border Protection and made several phone calls that night and early Saturday morning pleading with the CBP officials that our client be permitted parole to go and see his physician. By noon, Attorney Lorenzon called once again and the advanced parole was granted. Our client was able to travel to the United States to receive the appropriate medical treatment.(Back to Top)

overstayed voluntary departure- mexican citizen detained then released after we reopen the case

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.(Back to Top)

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.(Back to Top)

client Abused by legal permanent resident obtains green card

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.(Back to Top)

portuguese lpr renews green card easily 

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!(Back to Top)

renew green card despite criminal convictions

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.(Back to Top)

father misses his third child's birth while we work to get him released

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. (Back to Top)

federal law suit denying our client's false us citizenship claim 

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.(Back to Top)

fake passport does not affect adjustment of status eligibility 

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.(Back to Top)

case reopened because of legal entry 

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.(Back to Top)

out of the country for i-140 interview now with green card 

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.(Back to Top)

Canadian national marries usc granted employment, social SECURITY, and a driver's license

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!(Back to Top)

order of supervision and work authorization

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.(Back to Top)

"nunc pro tunc" to become legal permanent resident after issues with v visa

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" (correct an earlier court ruling) to 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.(Back to Top)

client detained over one year; we fight for client's release

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.(Back to Top)

ice erroneous bond revoked then quickly returned 

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.(Back to Top)

Mauritanian client fast approval 

Our client from Mauritania had a withholding of removal approved since October 2006. He asked us to renew his work authorization and sent us the filing fee in advance. We filed his I-765 form on September 26, 2008 with no filing fee, since we found a particular exemption for payment in his case; therefore we returned his money order. His work authorization was approved in approximately six weeks. We think our client must be happy not only because it was a fast approval, but because we helped him save some money in his case.(Back to Top)

daughter kidnapped by abusive husband; we get indian woman and children green cards away from ex-husband

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.(Back to Top)

us citizen petitions for guangzhou wife by showing us was official home  

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.(Back to Top)

2003 asylum and work renewal 

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.(Back to Top)

Canadian accountant approved for visa to work

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.(Back to Top)

team works tirelessly to get chinese national out of jail 

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!(Back to Top)

refile i-130 after uscis officer convinces client to WITHDRAWAL

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.(Back to Top)

continued extensions for stay of removal 

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!(Back to Top)

detained client granted time to adjudicate

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.(Back to Top)

aged out minor can still be petitioned under i-130 

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.(Back to Top)

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.

Connection: 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.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.(Back to Top)

family planning laws in china- asylum 

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.(Back to Top)

entered as a minor now green card and married to usc

Or client entered the U.S. from Mexico as a minor with her family. Her family had applied for border crossing cards. The client entered using her passport which was stamped with a tourist visa. She did not receive an I-94 upon entry. The officer only inspected the passport and allowed her to enter. She later met and married a U.S. citizen and applied for her green card. The client had lost her passport, and she never received the border crossing card in the mail. We showed circumstantial evidence that the client had legally entered the country. The client's green card application was approved. Mr. Ding Reyes assisted our attorneys on the case.(Back to Top)

uscis mistake lead to work authorization and almost permanent residency 

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.(Back to Top)

jaw surgery leads to extension of b-2 visa

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.(Back to Top)

I-131 to travel abroad 

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.(Back to Top)

chilean electrical engineer green card 

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.(Back to Top)

bonded to our client 

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.(Back to Top)

reopened case after missed hearing

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.(Back to Top)

I-130 instead of I-589

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.(Back to Top)

israeli pianist work authorization 

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.(Back to Top)

i-130 for children after uscis error

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.(Back to Top)

sri lankan client status changed

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.(Back to Top)

advanced parole for client and family to travel to uk 

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. (Back to Top)

H-1b visa to green card (three)

1) Our firm was originally retained in 2005 to process an H-1B visa for our client. After we submitted this application and received the approval notice; our client hired us to process the green card for him and his wife. On August 14, 2007 we filed application I-485 for husband and wife. Since we were working on getting the green card approved; our clients received for the first time their work permit authorization in September 2008. We filed the EAD renewal in June 2009. USCIS required more supporting documentation for the I-485 application. Legal assistant Brian Marek submitted the requested information within a week from that notice. Our clients received their green card in August 2011. Clients were very happy and grateful for all the help and support received during their green card process.

2) An Indian National hired our firm to process his application to register for a permanent residence. He has an H1B visa and he was eligible to apply for his green card. We filed application I-485, I-765 and I-131 on June 2011. USCIS is currently working on the application for the green card but our client already received his work authorization card this month of January 2012. Attorneys Lori Pinjuh, Andrew Bramante and Legal Assistant Sara Elaqad are working hard to get this I-485 approved.

3)A couple from India retained our firm to process his green card. They had H1B visa, and they were eligible to apply for their green card based on the Visa Bulletin . We filed I-485, I-765 and I-131 for them on Sept. 1, 2011. Two weeks later, they received fingerprint notice. They received their work and travel permit in early October. On December 30, 2011, I-485 was approved without RFE.(Back to Top)(Back to Top)

k visa for vietnamese couple

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.

N-336 to appeal naturalization denial 

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.(Back to Top)

motion to vacate petty theft allows naturalization

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.(Back to Top)

family of three I-485 journey

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.(Back to Top)

tn visa for canadian technologist

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.(Back to Top)

hotel business owner i-140

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.(Back to Top)

Canadian physician advanced parole to travel 

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.(Back to Top)

national visa center issues v visa for guangzhou client 

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.(Back to Top)

we push approval of hardship waiver for malaysian client 

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.(Back to Top)

daughter over 21 treated as a child to adjust status

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.(Back to Top)

adjustment of status for son and parents 

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.(Back to Top)

travel documents for family's funeral 

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.(Back to Top)

motion to reconsider h4 denial 

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.(Back to Top)

abandoned little girl now us citizen

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.(Back to Top)

mandamus expedites process for permanent residency

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.(Back to Top)

Thai i-129F visa for fiancee

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.(Back to Top)

moroccan woman's son b-2 visa renewal 

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.(Back to Top)

east indian national graduate and wife obtain green card

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.(Back to Top)

Short One-Sentence Bullet Stories:

release from custody

  • 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.
  • 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.(Back to Top)

I-360 petition for amerasian or special immigrant

  • After successfully getting a battered spouse self-petition (I-360) approved for a Korean client, we helped our client apply for adjustment of status (Form I-485). Just 4 months later, our client had her adjustment of status interview and she was approved. After years of struggle, she is now a lawful permanent resident.
  • 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.
  • Work permit for current client I-765: Our client has i-485 pending based on approved I-360 (special immigrant visa petition/religious worker/minister). The beneficiary's spouse, whose I-485 is also pending, has been eagerly waiting for the application to be approved so she may start working in a professional person using her professional training background. We filed I-765 for both the client and his wife and the two applications were approved within 2 months and each is valid for two years.
  • 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.(Back to Top)

B Visa

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • We laid out a timeline with client after their B-2 entry to address the intent issue. In the meantime, we directed the clients to obtain the requisite marriage and birth certificates from their countries that includes government letters, school records, ration cards, and affidavits of birth. It did turn out that USCIS asked for all these documents to establish relationship between petitioner and beneficiaries. Due to our foresight and planning, client responded to the RFE’s in a timely manner and got their green card accordingly.
  • 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(Back to Top)

P Visa

  • 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.
  • 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(Back to Top)

F Student Visa

  • A client from Canada entered the U.S. on a student visa and changed status to a TN visa. He met and married a U.S. citizen. His wife filed an I-130 Petition for Relative/I-485 Application for her husband in September 2008. The couple was scheduled for an interview in January 2009, and the case was approved.
  • We helped an alien from China file for an F-1 change of status on June 30, 2008. He was approved on July 30, 3008. The alien is processing his immigrant worker petition at the same time for his work as a chef in a restaurant.
  • 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.(Back to Top)

i-765 Work Authorization

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Work authorization for a citizen of Romania was filed in June 2007 and was approved in September 2007.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Our office received an approval to I-765 application after a week of issuance of a receipt notice for a citizen of China.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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!
  • 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.
  • A Chinese lady came to us while her case was pending before an Immigration Judge. We filed an I-765 petition (Employment Authorization Document) for her on June 12, 2008. The petition was approved on July 31, 2008. We are also working on her asylum case, and her next hearing will be in December 2008.
  • An Indian client we had been representing for several years met with us in our office and referred us to a friend of his who was interested in filing an I-765. After receiving the client's paperwork, we filed the I-765 on 9/15/08 and it was approved on 10/27/08.
  • 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.
  • 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.(Back to Top)

R Visa

  • 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.(Back to Top)

O-1 Visa

  • 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 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 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.
  • 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.
  • O-1 visa for physician from Peru, approved in a week with premium processing from Vermont Service Center.(Back to Top)

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!(Back to Top)

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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.(Back to Top)

i-131 Advanced parole and re-entry documetns

  • I-131: Advanced Parole: Indian national, filed to Texas in early June, 2007 and got approved in later July.
  • We filed I-131 Advance Parole Travel documents for a client from Moldova in August, 2007. The document was issued on December, 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.
  •  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.
  • Advance parole document was approved within a week for a citizen of Romania after issuance of a receipt notice.
  • 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.
  • 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.(Back to Top)

I-539 Application to Extend/Change Non-Immigrant 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.(Back to Top)

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.(Back to Top)

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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • We were retained by a religious worker from South Africa. On November 18, 2011, we filed I-129 R-1 application, and two weeks later, the petition was approved without RFE. This case was handled by Attorney Shelley Starzyk.
  • TN Visa We filed an I-129 (TN) extension for a Canadian client on 7/22/08. We received an approval on 9/11/08, but subsequently received a Request for Evidence four days after the approval. USCIS informed us that despite their mistake and the issuing of the original approval, we would still need to file the information requested in the RFE, or the case may be revoked or denied. We filed the RFE and received an amended approval on 11/20/08.
  • On November 15, 2011, we were retained by an employee from India who works at Kalypso Co. He wanted to extend his H-1B visa and H-4 visa for his wife. We filed I-539 and I-129 for a 3-year extension on November 21, and it was approved two weeks later without RFE.(Back to Top)

L Visa

  • 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.
  • A company based in Cleveland hired us to apply for a number of L-1B visas for their overseas employees. On March 30, 2011 we used premium processing to apply for a Dutch financial officer. On April 7, 2011 the application was approved!
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • After working with a corporate client to get one of their employees L-1B status in the United States, the L-1B employee's wife stated an interest in being authorized to work in the United States. She had always worked and did not want to be precluded from doing so for joining her husband in his move to the United States. We worked with the L-1B employee's wife to secure work authorization; it was granted in about two months.(Back to Top)

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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 approved in a week.
  • 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.
  • 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 petition was approved in June 2009 without RFE.
  • An I-140 Petition for a citizen of Ukraine was filed in April 2007. Petitioner's income taxes were below the proffered salary.
  • I-140 Perm based: Chinese national, second preference, filed to Texas in Feb. 2007 and was approved in July, 2007.
  • 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 approved on January 15, 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 approved on January 15, 2008.
  • 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 were retained by a Chinese citizen on November 21, 2006. Prior to filing I-140, we filed his PERM labor certification in March 2007. Two month later, we filed I-140, and it only took 2 weeks to receive approval notice. We immediately prepared documents, and filed I-485 and I-131. While his case was pending, he got married with a Chinese woman. We filed her I-485, I-131 and I-765 on August 2, 2011. They both got green card on September 2, 2011.
  • 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.
  • We were retained by a Canadian professional to work on his labor certification / I-140 and permanent residency applications. He is a steel engineer who has H-1B status and is highly skilled at his trade. We processed these applications and recently received approval for his employment authorization card for him and his wife given his I-485 application is pending based on an approved labor certification and pending I-140. The case is EB2 preference category.(Back to Top)

E Visa

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.(Back to Top)

H-1B Visa

  • 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.
  • 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 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.
  • An H-1B Petition was filed in August via regular processing for a citizen of Pakistan got approved within a month.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Our firm was retained in the middle of 2011 by a huge Franchisee Company in America. They hired us to file a petition for one of its employees. We filed the H-1B petition visa on December 2011 and it was approved on January 2012. The H-1-B was approved under the section 203 (b) (2). 
  • 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.(Back to Top)

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.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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-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.
  • Green Card applications that were filed for husband and wife for the citizens of Indonesia in June 2007, were approved by September 2007.
  • Green Card application that was filed for a citizen of India in June 2007 got approved in three months.
  • 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.
  • 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-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.
  • Last year a couple from China retained our firm for an I-485, application to adjust to permanent resident status. On September16, 2011 we filed the application for husband and wife to USCIS. In January of 2012 clients received their approvals for the I-765, application for employment authorization. Husband and wife are very happy and waiting for their I-485 Interview Notice to receive their green card.(Back to Top)

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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.(Back to Top)