H-1B Petition
Approved , Although Filed Long After Worker Started Current Job
Employer, a Fortune 500 company, transferred a foreign worker in H-1B status from a research and development job to a production
one without previously seeking immigration service approval for a material change in previously approved employment.
Months later it retained Stephen M. Brent to apply for the change after the fact. Citing an obscure letter written
by an INS officer 12 years ago expressing the opinion that a petitioner should not be penalized for late filing in the case
of a material change in H-1B employment, we filed the required petition. By action dated March 29, 2007, the service
approved the petition and changed the worker’s status in the United States to reflect the new employment. The
action exempted the worker from the potentially risky necessity of applying for a new visa abroad, a usual requirement when
a person violates status in the US.
Green Card Reissued As Service Waives Option to Deport
Upon evidence that came to light
that he had been convicted of a controlled substance offense about 20 years ago, when, a Canadian citizen
pro se filed to renew his green card, the immigration service initially requested further evidence. At that point,
recognizing that the conviction, although very old, could trigger his deportation, he retained this firm.
We investigated the history, found no further offences, and filed a response to the service’s request.
Shortly thereafter the service issued the green card, and a letter from a district director asserting the client’s
eligibility to be deported, but also declaring that it would not seek his deportation because that would not advance
a substantial enforcement interest of the United States.
02/26/2007
Spousal-Based
Adjustment of Status Granted although Parties Were Separated and Wife Lived Out of State
Our client, a citizen of Kenya, came to the U.S. in 1996 and overstayed. In 2003 he married a U.S. citizen.
Although they lived together in Upstate New York when we filed for adjustment of status on his behalf, she moved to another
state before the mandatory interview they both needed to attend at the immigration service district office in Buffalo.
The spouse did return to attend the interview where the facts were candidly disclosed to the adjudications officer, who nevertheless
granted the application.
11/28/2006
