Immigration Success Stories USA

We recently accepted a client who had a peculiarly perplexing problem. She had been in the United States on O-1B nonimmigrant status as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts since 2013. In 2018, she had an I-140 approved for preference classification as an EB-1A alien of extraordinary ability in the arts based on the same work that she had been doing as a nonimmigrant.

In order for her to be able to adjust her status without having to proceed abroad to apply for a visa, the client needed to have her O-1 status extended one more time. However, the USCIS issued her and her prior attorney a second Request for Evidence instead of granting her petition. She found this odd. Not only had the USCIS extended her O-1 status on several occasions, it had also just approved her request for the more stringent immigrant classification based on her same work and achievements.

The client turned to The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal for assistance in handling the Request for Evidence related to her O-1 extension request. Having handled many employment-based cases, we knew that once USCIS issues a Request for Evidence and articulates grounds on which it may be inclined to deny a petition, it can be difficult to change the agency’s mind.

We carefully studied the USCIS’s lengthy Request for Evidence. After our review, we adopted a three-pronged strategy for overcoming the Request for Evidence. The strategy involved rejecting certain erroneous assertions by the USCIS, submitting additional evidence to clarify key points, and highlighting that the USCIS appeared to be adopting different reasoning in the Request for Evidence than it had applied to her previous petitions.

First, we identified one point regarding the client’s work since her previous O-1 approval that the USCIS had misconstrued. The USCIS suggested that she had claimed that one of her jobs was grander than what she actually claimed, and then found that the evidence she submitted did not establish a claim that she had not made. We took the time to explain what the client actually did and why it was supported by the evidence and, thus, supported her petition. Furthermore, we disagreed with the USCIS’s position that other professional assignments that it did not expressly misconstrue were nevertheless insufficient to establish the client’s eligibility for O-1 classification. We carefully described each of her work assignments and explained why the USCIS was wrong to minimize their significance.

Second, the USCIS expressed concerns about certain employment that she had engaged in after the expiration of her prior O-1 approval. In order for the employment to have been legal, she needed to have entered into an employment agreement prior to that date. After assessing her case, we found that her employment did not violate her status, but that the initial letters she had submitted left some room for ambiguity. We worked with the client to obtain new letters from the employers in question clarifying the nature and timing of her employment.

Third and finally, we repeatedly reminded the USCIS that it had, on multiple occasions, extended the client’s O-1 status for the same work, and that it had just recently granted her immigrant visa petition on the same basis. While the approval of one request does not guarantee the approval of another, it was quite clear that, if anything, the client became more qualified for extraordinary ability classification as she had accrued career accomplishments.

After reviewing our response, the USCIS agreed and granted the client’s Form I-129 petition to extend her O-1 status, thus allowing her to pursue adjustment of status on the basis of her approved Form I-140. It was our privilege to help a talented individual on her path to becoming a lawful permanent resident and continuing to ply her trade in the United States. This case highlights the importance of not panicking when the Government does something peculiar, but instead carefully examining the Government’s rationale and addressing it point-by-point.

I-129 petition is granted on behalf of an extraordinary ballet dancer and ballet teacher from Russia to allow her to work in the USA teaching ballet at the well-established chain of ballet dance schools.

This is an interesting case. The IJ made several rather arbitrary findings, which the BIA agreed were not supported by the record. In assessing credibility, the IJ relied heavily on his own opinions and not the evidence in the record. Appeal sustained. Congratulations go to our entire team including Wendy R. Barlow who handled the appeal and Alexander J. Segal who handled the trial stage.

The case involved an application for asylum by a Baptist from Russia. While the Judge was unhappy with the credibility of the respondent and other issues having to do with his testimony; found that the respondent suffered no past persecution the Judge, nevertheless, concluded that the respondent managed to convince her that he was indeed a Baptist and that Baptists are routinely subjected to persecution in Russia so the Judge granted asylum based on well founded fear of future persecution.

A respondent in removal proceedings recently retained our firm to handle his application for asylum. The client, a gay man from India, feared persecution were he to return to India, where he had not been for a decade since he came to the United States as a nonimmigrant student. We can happily report that we were able to assist him in winning asylum in the United States.

As a threshold matter, we had to establish that the respondent’s asylum application was timely. He had initially entered the United States as an F-1 student in 2009, and his last entry was as an F-1 student 2011. In 2012, he obtained H-1B status, but his status lapsed when he was laid off from his position one year later. Because the client had hoped to eventually earn lawful permanent resident status based on his employment, he had not applied for asylum. He did however apply for asylum expeditiously – one week – after being laid off from his job. We were able to successfully argue that his failure to apply for asylum within one year of entry was excusable by extraordinary circumstances – specifically that he had lawful status for several years, and he then applied for asylum almost immediately after he lost the job that was the basis of his H-1B status.

Secondly, we had to establish that the client, who had not been subjected to past harm rising to the level of persecution, had a well-founded fear of future persecution. In addition to the fact that he had not been subjected to past persecution, the case was challenging because while the situation for sexual minorities in India is poor, it is not necessarily such that every adjudicator would presume that all sexual minorities in India presumptively have a well-founded fear of future persecution. The client’s personal statement described in detail the particular family and community circumstances that caused him to fear for his life were he to be removed to India. We buttressed his application by providing extensive supporting documentation about country conditions in India, showing that the harm he feared was very real.

After hearing and considering his case, the immigration judge granted the client’s asylum application, not only lifting the specter of serious harm or death that had loomed over him for many years, but also giving him the much-deserved opportunity to build a life for himself in the United States without fear that it could unravel at any moment. It was the privilege of The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal to help him win asylum protection in the United States.