​We want to share a successful case of our firm with you today. Ten months after our client submitted his I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence, our client received an interview notice from USCIS. During the interview, the client acknowledged his active Communist Party (CCP) membership. After the interview, our client received a denial notice. 
 
Let's first take a look at the reasons provided in the I-485 denial notice issued by USCIS. The client confirmed that he had been a CCP member within the five years immediately preceding the filing of the green card application. He explained that his membership was voluntary; he claimed that his membership was not necessary by operation of law, or that it was for obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living. The client has been a member of the Communist Party for a decade and has not terminated the membership.
According to US immigration law, the client is not qualified to adjust his status, and USCIS denies his Form I-485.
 
After receiving the I-485 denial, the client resubmitted an I-485 application with an I-601 waiver application. Unexpectedly, the two applications were denied again two months later. In the I-601 denial letter, the USCIS explained that the client's qualifying relative has only demonstrated ordinary hardship but not extreme hardship. Thus, the second green card application was also denied because of the denial of the I-601 waiver application.
 
Later, the client realized that this case desperately needed to be handled by a professional lawyer with extensive experience in waiver cases. Therefore, the client made an appointment with the Law Offices of Sabrina Li. Our office conducted a detailed evaluation for the client and provided professional advice.
 
When assessing whether a qualifying relative will experience extreme hardship, the USCIS officer must consider all factors and consequences in their totality and cumulatively.
 
There were several difficulties in the case. First, the client's I-485 application had been denied twice, and if it was denied again, the client may be referred to immigration court for removal proceedings.  Second, on top of that, the client submitted an I-601 waiver once by himself. If the waiver application submitted a second time is not significantly different from the first one, it would likely be denied again. Third, the client had only one qualifying relative in the United States, and that was his adult child. It is relatively difficult to prove that adult children would face extreme hardships when their parents are forced to leave. However, our office was confident that we could help the client submit a successful I-601 waiver application.
 
 
After the consultation, the client believed that our office had made a very convincing analysis, so he did not hesitate and hired our office as his attorney for his I-601 application immediately.
 
Our office did not disappoint the client. Our team quickly prepared and submitted application materials for the client. In the end, the client's waiver application was approved, and the client successfully obtained the green card.

We would like to share another successful case of our firm with you today. Our client was holding an H-1B visa and received a Request for Evidence Notice (RFE) from USCIS when applying for an extension. USCIS pointed out that the client never worked in Findream LLC, but stated that Findream employed her during her OPT period. That was a false statement to the U.S. government, and the USCIS requested more evidence to prove her employment with FINDDREAM. 

Optional Practical Training (OPT) is a temporary work authorization issued to F-1 students.  While a job offer is not required to apply for OPT, the student may not have a cumulative total of 90 days of unemployment during the 12-month OPT period. Otherwise, they fall out of status and no longer qualify for a change or extension of status.
​
However, some students could not secure a job within the provided period, so they find a company that provides them an offer letter but does not work for them. The students submit the offer letter to the school's International Students Office, or to SEVP portal to update their employment records. Such action violates the immigration law and may harm their future immigration applications, including change of status, adjustment of status in the U.S., or applying for a visa through consulate processing.

Now let's look at the reasons provided in the RFE letter issued to the client in this case. The USCIS provided a detailed description of Findream, LLC (Findream) in the RFE letter. Findream was founded in 2013. In March 2019, the United States filed a criminal complaint against the owner of Findream.  In the past five years, Findream received money from international students, permitted them to list the company as their employer, and provided them with false job offers and supporting documents, including false payroll documents and tax forms. 

Findream's employer, Kelly Huang, in addition to founding Findream, also founded Sinocontech, LLC (Sinocontech). The companies she founded "employed" more international students than Facebook, IBM, Apple, and other big tech companies. 

Other than Findream, there are other known fraudulent companies that are on the U.S government's watch list, including the following:

• CG Max Design
• CloudParticle
• XCG Design
• Arecy
• Tellon Trading
• Masswell Development Group
• Abroad Intellect Capital
• Acuty
• Dealfar
• Smoothies Technology
• New Beast

In the RFE letter, USCIS alleged that the client made a material misrepresentation to the U.S. government by listing Findream as her employer for a year during their OPT period, and this could result in inadmissibility finding under the INA $212(a)(6)(c)(i) code for fraud/misrepresentation. For this reason, USCIS may deny the H-1B visa extension application.

However, by issuing an RFE letter, the USCIS was giving the applicant a chance to provide evidence that she did work at the company. If she did, she should submit a statement that explains whether she was employed at Findream, her supervisor's name, job responsibilities, work address, projects she worked on, and any other factors that USCIS should consider in its exercise of discretion. In addition to the statement, the USCIS also recommended the supporting documents the client should provide, including her work products, pay stubs, Form W-2, Forms 1099, original tax returns transcripts, etc.

There are two main considerations. First, if the client had never worked at Findream, she would not be able to provide any supporting documents requested by USCIS. Second, the client listed Findream as the employer for almost a year. Even if the client could prove that she did not intentionally provide fraudulent information to the USCIS, her unemployed duration had exceeded the unemployment grace period (90 days) permitted under OPT.

Considering the seriousness of the matter, the client contacted the Law Offices of Sabrina Li and hired us immediately. In response to the RFE letter, we prepared and submitted the relevant materials and a legal brief for the client, and the client's H-1B extension application was finally approved.

If you, or somebody you know, find yourselves in a similar situation, and you need immediate assistance, our offices are here to help.

​We want to share a successful case of our firm with you today. Our client previously filed a marriage-based green card application herself, and it was denied because USCIS believed that she had concealed her previous record of visa refusal in her earlier ESTA visa waiver application. We helped her submit a second application, and she was finally approved.
 
Let's first take a look at the reasons provided in the USCIS's denial notice. The client was refused a student visa back in the 1990s, then later obtained a B1/B2 visa in 2005. Sometime afterwards, the client applied for an ESTA Visa Waiver. In the visa waiver application, the client claimed that she had never been denied a visa. After that, the client applied for the ESTA visa waiver two more times and stated that she had no record of refusal in both applications. The USCIS pointed out that because the client provided false information in her ESTA visa waiver applications, her actions were considered as immigration fraud under the INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i), and her green card application was denied for this reason. USCIS then informed the client that she had no rights to remain in the U.S. and requested she leave the country within 33 days.
 
Before USCIS denied the client's first adjustment of status application, the client had an opportunity to respond to the Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) letter, but USCIS did not accept her response. So, if the client refiles her I-485 and merely repeats her answer from her previous response, it would not change USCIS's decision. Not only that, but after the client's first I-485 application denial, she started to accrue unlawful presence in the U.S., which could have subjected her to a 3-year or 10-year bar after she departs the U.S. 
 
That's why we resubmitted her adjustment of status application with additional evidence and legal arguments. This time, with both our office's and our client's efforts, her case was successfully approved.  

We would like to share another successful case of our firm with you. A client divorced before filing his I-751, petition to remove conditions. Later, the client remarried and went to a second green card interview, but he was taken to immigration detention after the interview. Our team filed a motion to reopen and rescind the removal order before the immigration court, and the client finally obtained a permanent green card.
 
Ten years ago, the client married a U.S. citizen and obtained a two-year conditional green card. However, before the conditional green card expired, the client divorced his ex-wife and did not file I-751 to remove the condition. Therefore, the USCIS terminated the client’s legal status and referred the client to the immigration court. In addition, the USCIS mailed the Notice to Appear (NTA) to the address provided by the client in his previous application. Since the client had moved, he never received this court notice.
 
A few years later, the client married another U.S. citizen. The current spouse submitted a second green card application for him. Soon after, the client received an interview notice and also attended the immigration interview on time with his current spouse. During the interview, the interviewer found that the client had a deportation order, so the interviewer notified ICE immediately and sent the client to the immigration jail.
 
According to U.S. immigration law, if the marriage is less than two years, the applicant will get a temporary green card valid for two years. Within 90 days before the expiration of the conditional green card, the applicant should submit a petition to convert the conditional green card to a permanent green card. If the petition is not submitted in time or the petition is rejected, the conditional green card status will be terminated. If the conditional green card expires and there is no other legal status for someone to stay in the United States, the person may be referred to immigration court for removal proceedings.
 
Once the case is before the immigration court, it is imperative to update the accurate and current address with the court on time. Suppose the applicant does not receive the notice from the court and is absent from the hearing; in that case, the judge can issue a removal order after hearing the government lawyer. Once the removal order is issued, and the applicant fails to leave the country on time, ICE has the right to detain the applicant in the immigration detention facility and deport him back to his country at any time.
 
We submitted a motion to reopen the removal order for the client, and proved to the court that the client did not receive the NTA, and he had reasons for not appearing as scheduled. Although the client is obliged to update his address, it would be fundamentally unfair and cause difficulties for the client’s U.S citizen family members if the removal order is not reopened.
 
Finally, the judge agreed to open the trial proceedings. Since USCIS has confirmed the authenticity of the client’s new marriage and the I-130 has been approved, the I-485 adjustment of status (which is the green card application) was finally approved by the court.

We would like to share another successful case of our firm with you today. Our client received a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) on his I-485 application but finally obtained a green card with the approval of an I-601 waiver.
 
We filed a marriage-based green card application for the client. After his I-130 Petition was approved, we received a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) of the client's I-485 application. Now let's look at the reasons provided in the NOID letter. 
 
The letter pointed out that the client and his ex-wife entered the United States with a B2 tourist visa. The ex-wife filed an asylum application and included the client in the application as her spouse. Later, the client was granted employment authorization based on this pending asylum application. After a couple years, the client divorced his ex-wife, the principal asylum applicant. However, when filing to renew his work authorization, the client indicated that he was still married in Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization. 

​During the I-485 interview, the client responded that he did not know what was filled out on Form I-765 because his attorney had filled out the forms and did not review them. The officer showed that the client had signed this form, certifying under penalty of perjury that the information on the form "is true and correct." The letter stated that "if you use a preparer to help you fill out an application, you are still responsible for the information on that application." The client had divorced the principal applicant in 2016, but he continued to willfully utilize the benefit of employment authorization that was based on a pending application filed by a spouse to whom he was no longer married. Therefore, the client was inadmissible to the United States under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for willful misrepresentation.
 
If there is immigration fraud or misrepresentation, any future immigration benefits will be denied unless a waiver is granted. The client was a dependent asylum applicant, but this relationship no longer exists after the divorce. If the waiver application is denied, the client will lose his legal status in the United States and be sent to immigration court for removal proceedings.
 
After analyzing the client's situation, we recommended that the client apply for a waiver based on the client's family situation. Finally, our team prepared and submitted sufficient and strong evidence to support this waiver application. In less than a month, the client's waiver and green card applications were approved at the same time, and the client soon received a permanent green card in the mail. If you had applied for asylum before or were a family member of an asylum applicant and plan to apply for a marriage-based green card, please be aware of all types of potential problems.
 
If you, or somebody you know, find yourselves in a similar situation, and you need immediate assistance, our offices are here to help.

We would like to share another successful case of our firm with you today. 
 
The client filed an I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, but USCIS requested more evidence. After failing to submit the supplemental documents as requested, the case was denied. With our help, the client reopened the I-130 by submitting I-290B and reopened the case successfully.
 
The client showed us the Request for Evidence (RFE) issued by the USCIS. Now let's look at the reasons provided in the RFE letter. The letter stated that "if you submit a document in any language other than English, the document must be accompanied by a full and English translation. The translator must certify that the translation is accurate, and he or she is competent to translate from that language to English. If you submit a foreign language translation in response to this request for evidence, you must also include a copy of the foreign language document."

The letter further explained that in the cases of permanent residents of the United States apply for unmarried adult children, the children must be unmarried and under the age of 21 and have the legally required relative relationship with the United States permanent resident. In this case, the child's birth certificate and its English translation submitted by the client did not meet the USCIS requirements to prove their relationship. 
 
After analyzing the client's situation, we believe that the client did not correctly understand the RFE letter, rather than unable to provide the correct supporting documents. Therefore, we believe filing an I-290B (Motion to Reopen) is the best plan to solve the problem.
 
Four months later, the Motion to Reopen was approved. The client's rejected I-130 petition was reopened and sent back for further review, and USCIS gave the client another opportunity to resubmit the requested evidence. 
 
Now, let us introduce you to the relevant information about Form I-290B. Generally, after the immigration application is denied, the applicant has the right to submit an I-290B form to challenge the denial decisions. I-290B includes three types of motions, Motion to Reopen, Motion to Reconsider, and a combination of Motion to Reopen and Reconsider. 
 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. Alternatively, a motion to reconsider is based on a claim of incorrect application of law or policy to the prior decision.

In this case, an important note to point out is that for the F-2B category application, which is for permanent residents who apply for unmarried adult children, is subject to a cap and has a priority date. If the client resubmits a new I-130 petition, his priority date would restart and they would have to wait longer before the new priority date is current. 
 
After careful consideration, we decided to file an I-290B motion for the client to reopen their case. In this way, the client could resubmit the requested evidence and maintain their previous priority date. With our help, the client's case was successfully reopened and approved.
 
If you, or somebody you know, find yourselves in a similar situation, and you need immediate assistance, our offices are here to help.

We would like to share with you a successful LGBT asylum case in the immigration court.
 
The client fled from South America to the United States and was arrested by border officials when entering the US border. Because the client did not have the authorization to enter the United States legally, he was sent to an immigration detention facility.  
 
The client told the border officials that he did not dare to return to his home country because he was afraid of being persecuted. As a result, he was given a Credible Fear interview. After the interview, the client received a notice from the court and was given the opportunity to apply for asylum in immigration court.
 
In his asylum application, the client mentioned that he fled his home country because the local gang members forced him to join a gang. Because of his disobedience to the gang, he was threatened. Even if the client reported to the local police, he would not receive help from them.
 
However, during the client’s prep for his individual hearing, we discovered that there were multiple inconsistencies in the client's testimony. After repeatedly confirming with the client, we learned that the client had concealed the real reason for applying for asylum. The client was persecuted because of his homosexuality, and he was worried that his family would find out about his sexual orientation. He was too ashamed to tell the judge what happened.
 
Finally, we encouraged the client to tell the truth in court. During the trial, both the judge and the interpreter were very sympathetic to his experience. They believed that his failure to inform the judge of the truth in the earlier processes was justified. Finally, his asylum application was approved.

​We would like to share another successful case of our firm with you today. The client's STEM OPT application was denied, but with our help, we timely filed an I-290B Motion to Reconsider, and the client successfully obtained their work permit.
 
The client applied for a STEM OPT after the expiration of her first year OPT. A few months later, the client received a denial letter from USCIS. The letter pointed out that the degree program the client completed was not listed on the STEM Designated Degree Program List. Therefore, she was ineligible for employment authorization under STEM OPT.
 
Post-completion Optional Practical Training (OPT) is temporary employment directly related to an F-1 student's major. Eligible students can apply to receive up to 12 months of OPT employment authorization after completing their academic studies. If the students have earned a degree in certain science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, they may apply for a 24-month extension of their post-completion OPT employment authorization. That means students holding STEM OPT will have three years in total of work authorization.
 
It is worth noting that the USCIS has stringent requirements on the submission time of STEM OPT applications. Students need to ensure that their OPT extension application is filed within 90 days before their OPT expires and 60 days after receiving their new I-20 Form. When the client contacted us, her previous one-year OPT had expired. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the client could not recover her student status by leaving and re-entering the United States.
 
After analyzing the client's situation, we believed that the immigration officer's decision was wrong because the client could submit a STEM OPT request based on her prior STEM qualifying degree. Therefore, we decided filing an I-290B (Motion to Reopen) was the best plan. 
 
Here, let us introduce you to the relevant knowledge regarding Form I-290B. Generally, after an immigration application is denied, the applicant has the option to submit an I-290B form to challenge the denial. I-290B covers three types of motions, Motion to Reopen, Motion to Reconsider, and a combination of Motion to reopen and Motion to Reconsider.
 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. Alternatively, a motion to reconsider is based on a claim of incorrect application of law or policy to the prior decision.
 
Luckily, merely one month later, the I-290B motion was approved. The client's STEM OPT was also approved, and the new work permit was issued to her soon after.
 
The application of STEM OPT is very important for F-1 students because it provides an extra two years of work authorization. With the H-1B lottery winning rate getting lower and lower, it is very beneficial for international students to have two additional years to win the lottery.
 
If you, or somebody you know, find yourselves in a similar situation, and you need immediate assistance, our offices are here to help.

We would like to share a successful case of our firm with you today. In 2011, our client married a U.S. citizen. She received a conditional green card through the marriage-based application in 2012. One year and nine months after receiving the conditional green card, the client applied to remove the conditions on her conditional green card. However, during the period of holding her conditional green card, the client had separated from her husband. In 2016, the client received an I-751 interview notice from the USCIS. The client and the U.S. citizen husband went to the interview together. Due to inconsistent testimony during the interview, our client received a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) soon after.
 
After being introduced by a friend, our client contacted the Law Offices of Sabrina Li. After carefully examining the client's situation, we were confident that we could help the client.
 
We first prepared a NOID response for our client. However, USCIS denied the I-751 petition and accused the client of a fraudulent marriage. After that, our office filed a Motion to Reconsider (I-290B) for the client. In 2019, the USCIS denied the motion and referred the case to the immigration court to deport the client.
 
We did not give up and believed there was still a chance for the client to obtain her green card. Regardless of previous results, the client always trusted our legal advice.
 
Although the client was always unwilling to file a divorce, after hearing the analysis and suggestions from our office, she finally divorced her husband and attended the court hearing.
 
At the hearing, Attorney Li argued for the client, requesting the judge terminate the removal proceedings, and helped successfully transferred the case back to the USCIS to file an I-751 petition with a waiver request.
 
In 2020, the client attended the I-751 interview without her ex-husband at the USCIS. Finally, the immigration officer reversed the initial decision, believing that the client's previous marriage was in good faith, and approved the client's I-751 petition.
 
In this case, the client spent ten years and experienced various difficulties before finally obtained a permanent green card. The client appreciated the support and encouragement from the Law Offices of Sabrina Li. She commented that although there are many lawyers on the market, it is difficult to find reliable, professional, and capable lawyers like us. The client believes that choosing the Law Offices of Sabrina Li was the best choice she has ever made.​

We would like to share a successful case of our firm with you today. The client reported himself as being married on the DS 160 form when applying for his B1/B2 visa, when he was actually single at the time. The USCIS later issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) to the client and his current U.S. citizen wife regarding the marriage-based immigration application.
 
The client claimed that a Chinese travel agency handled the B1/B2 visa application because he did not understand English. And he was not aware of the mistakes made by the travel agency on the DS 160 form. However, USCIS does not believe his explanation was sufficient. Therefore, USCIS requested the client to supplement related documents within 33 days, or it will deny the adjustment of status application under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Material Misrepresentation / Fraud.
 
The client was worried about the risk of being separated from his family if his application was denied. Therefore, he immediately looked for immigration lawyers. The client did a lot of research on many lawyers in Los Angeles, including the Law Offices of Sabrina Li. After the client learned more about our office, he contacted us for a consultation.
 
When the client told us about his situation, we provided professional advice and recommended solutions, which relieved the client's anxiety and worries. As a result, the client decided to have us handle his case.
 
Finally, with the efforts of our team, the client's I-601 waiver and I-485 were approved at the same time, and the client successfully obtained his green card.
 
When looking back, the client realized how delicate the situation was. His case might have been denied again if he did not submit a strong waiver application.
 
The client appreciated Attorney Li's help. He commented that his life would be disastrous if it were not for our help. With certainty, the client said he would hire our office again if he needs to apply for naturalization or apply for visas for his parents in the future. He will once again entrust his case to the Law Offices of Sabrina Li and her excellent team