We recently received an approval for a 10 year marriage based green card. My client first came to me years ago inquiring about Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). He was born in Mexico but came to the United States at a young age. He entered the US illegally without inspection. He graduated high school and received a degree from a Cal State school. He was married to a US citizen at the time.

We obtained DACA and a work authorization card. Once he had DACA, we applied for Advance Parole so he could visit an ailing family member in Mexico. He visited Mexico for a few days, then returned to the United States using the Advance Parole.

Because his last entry to the US was legal (using the Advance Parole), we were able to apply for a marriage-based adjustment of status. Normally a person who entered the United States illegally is ineligible to adjust status and must obtain an I-601A waiver before he can receive a green card; however, our client was eligible because his most recent entrance into the US was lawful.

We attended the adjustment interview in San Bernardino and everything went smoothly. His case was approved and he received his green card this week.

Our client obtained lawful permanent resident status through his marriage to his US citizen wife in 2008. In 2010, the couple filed the I-751 petition to remove conditions on residency and USCIS approved it.

In 2011, he filed the N-400 naturalization application after three years of permanent residency and marriage to his US citizen wife. USCIS interviewed him as part of the naturalization process. After 18 months of waiting, USCIS denied his N-400 stating that he had not been living in marital union for the requisite 3 years. USCIS stated that according to site visits and investigations, they had determined that he had been living with the mother of his children rather than his wife since before the filing of the I-751. USCIS also denied his N-336 Hearing on Denied Naturalization on similar grounds.

We were hired to handle the federal district court litigation.

In court, the government OIL (Office of Immigration Litigation) attorney argued that because our client did not live with his wife under the same roof during the three years prior to filing naturalization, he was ineligible. Additionally, he questioned whether our client committed fraud by filing the I-751 jointly with his wife when our client was not living with her. The OIL attorney argued that our client was not in a marital union during the requisite three years because the couple did not live together the whole time.

The judge disagreed. He found that although our client was not living physically together during the whole time, they continued to live in a marital union because they were still legitimately married and were trying to work on their marital differences. He stated that the couple may have been informally separated but more factual development is necessary to determine if the separation signified a clear end to the marital union. Read the court’s decision here.   

We recently received an approval for an O-1 visa for one of our ballroom dance instructors. He’s originally from Australia and has competed professionally for many years. He hired another immigration attorney to file his O-1. That attorney filed under the O-1B classification, but USCIS denied the case. USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (“RFE”) stating that it did not regard ballroom dance instructors as artists, but instead classified them as athletes.

We re-filed the case as an O-1A and it was approved within three weeks without an RFE being issued.

Our client, whose record includes multiple national and international titles and headline performances in well-known dance productions, was very pleased with the result. As I write this, he is attending his consular interview in Australia so he can obtain his visa to enter the United States.

We just received approvals for two of our clients. They arrived in the United States in 1992 and crossed illegally. They have lived in the US ever since and have three children – two US citizens and one DACA-approved. In 1997, the husband’s brother, a US citizen, filed a fourth preference petition for the sibling of a US citizen. The wife was a derivative beneficiary under that petition.

Because the couple is from Mexico, the wait time for fourth preference processing was almost 20 years. Once the priority date became current, we filed the application for adjustment of status.

The couple had no prior deportations or criminal issues. Because the brother filed the petition prior to 1998, the couple was eligible to adjust status based on INA 245i. As a general rule, an alien must have entered the United States legally in order to adjust status to lawful permanent resident. Additionally, the alien must have maintained lawful status while in the US and not worked without authorization. However, INA 245i created an exception to the general rule if the alien is the beneficiary of a family based petition or employment based labor certification filed before April 30, 2001. The alien must pay an additional $1000 penalty to apply via INA 245i.

The interview went smoothly. Our clients were well-prepared and, of course, I was present to make sure they were treated fairly and felt comfortable. At the conclusion of the interview, they received their approval notices.

Now that they are permanent residents, they plan to file a petition for their non-US citizen son. His case will take several years to process, but he will benefit from 245i as well.

Employers looking to terminate an H-1B employee must make certain they follow regulations unique to H-1B employees.  If an employer wishes to terminate an H-1B employee before their authorized period of stay, the employer may be liable for the employee’s back pay wages for the remaining period of stay, transportation costs back to the employee’s home country, and/or other remedies.  In order to avoid such penalties, the employer must carry out a “bona fide termination” of the employment relationship. (INA § 655.731(c)(7)(ii)).  A bona fide termination is executed only after the employer satisfies three requirements. The employer must: (1) notify the employee of the termination of employment, (2) notify USCIS that the employment relationship is terminated, and (3) provide the employee with the reasonable cost of return to their home country. (Limanseto v. Ganze & Compny, OALJ 2011-LCA-00005 at 6).

The first step in executing a “bona fide termination” is to expressly inform the employee that the employment relationship is terminated.  This notification must be clear and unequivocal.  The burden of proving the end of back wage liability remains with the employer. (Mao v. Nasser Eng’g & Computing Sevs. ARB 06-121, (ALJ 2005-LCA-036at 24)).  As such, it is critical the employer keep any correspondence notifying the employee of termination.

Second, the employer must notify USCIS that the employment relationship terminated.  Under INA §101 (a)(15)(H), the petitioner [employer] shall immediately notify the Service [USCIS] of any changes in the employment of a beneficiary [employee] which would affect eligibility under INA §101 (a)(15)(H).  Terminating the employment relationship is considered a change of employment requiring USCIS notification. When an employer terminates the employment relationship, they are essentially withdrawing their petition.  For this reason, it is important to notify USCIS immediately.  “Informing the immigration authorities that the employment has been terminated is the quid pro quo to be relieved of one of the duties the employer promises to fulfill when it signs the labor condition application: the duty to pay the required wage.” (Limanseto v. Ganze & Company, OALJ 2011-LCA-00005 at 6-7).  Notifying USCIS the employee relationship is terminated, allows USCIS to cancel the petition and relieves the employer of any liability to pay the employee.  In a case where the employer was found not to have executed a bona fide termination for failure to notify USCIS and was found liable for backpay, the Court stated, “for the price of a postage stamp, the Employer often can absolve itself of further liability.” Id. at 7.

If the employer decides not to terminate the relationship and merely ceases to pay the employee, the employer can be found liable for “benching.”  “Benching” is a term used to describe when an employer stops paying an employee and places the employee on non-productive status due to a decision made by the employer (ex. lack of work). (20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(7)(i)).  If an employee is on non-productive status and the decision was not based on the employee’s voluntary request to be absent from work, (ex. voluntary resignation or going on vacation) the employer must continue to pay the employee the required wage rate.  (Admistrator, Wage and Hour Division v. Itek Consulting, Inc., 08- LCA-46 (ALJ May 6, 2009 at 10).  However, if the employer decides to terminate the employment relationship, notifies USCIS that there is a termination, and follows the other steps required to execute a “bona fide termination,” the employer is no longer obligated to pay the employee the required wage rate. (INA § 655.731(c)(7)(ii)).

Lastly, the employer must provide the employee with reasonable cost of transportation to his or her home country.  (Amtel Group of Fla., Inc. v. Yongmahapakorn, ARB No. 04-087, ALJ. 2004- LCA- 006 at 11).  The employer may cover the cost of return to the employee’s home country by purchasing a one-way plane ticket for the employee back to his/her last place of foreign residence. (8 C.F.R. 214.2 (h)(4)(iii)(E)).  It is important to note that the employer is obligated to pay for the cost of return transportation only if the employee is terminated before the period of authorized stay.  If the employee voluntarily terminates his employment prior to the end date of his authorized stay, the employer does not have to pay the cost of return transportation.  

Moreover, an employer need not establish a valid basis or good cause for termination.  For the purposes of determining a bona fide termination and avoiding back pay liability, the employer may terminate the employment relationship for any reason. (Amtel Group of Fla., Inc. v. Yongmahapakorn, ARB No. 04-087, ALJ. 2004- LCA- 006 at 10).  However, the failure to prove every element of a bona fide termination leaves an employer liable for the entire period of authorized employment.  (Limanseto v. Ganze, OALJ 2011-LCA-00005 at 8).  Thus, the employer must (1) notify the employee of the employment termination, (2) notify USCIS the relationship is terminated so that USCIS may revoke approval of the petition, and (3) pay the employee the cost of return transportation to their last foreign residence.  Once all three requirements have been met, there has been a bona fide termination and the employer no longer has a duty to pay the required wage rate.

House Democrats and Republicans reached an agreement to fund the U.S. Government through 2016; however, the bill includes several provisions including one that effects the Visa Waiver Program.

The Visa Waiver Program applies to 38 partner countries including England, Australia, Chile, Japan, Spain and Taiwan among others. The program facilitates tourism and business and allows citizens of partner countries to travel to the United States for up to 90 days without obtaining a visa. In exchange the partner countries agree to share information about potential threats to national security.

The riders included in the spending bill would restrict access to the waiver program, making it difficult for citizens of those countries who have traveled to Syria, Iraq, Iran or Sudan — or citizens with dual citizenship between partner countries and those nations — to enter the U.S.

We recently received an extension approval for an O-1 Visa for one of our ballet dancer clients. We originally obtained the O-1 three years ago. We filed for the extension and received the approval within less than two weeks.

We provided updated evidence to show that our client was still performing at an elite level including recent dance activity and the 2016 itinerary. USCIS approved the extension for one year.

If you are considering an O-1 visa, contact Nelson & Nuñez.

We just received an approval for an I-485 application for adjustment of status that we filed earlier this year. We represented our client in obtaining U visa status in 2012. Three years after he obtained the U visa, he was eligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident.

We filed the I-485 and a few months later we received a request for evidence claiming that our client was ineligible to adjust status because he had entered the United States with fraudulent intent – he entered as a naval vessel crewman however he intended to stay in the US permanently.

In response we provided ample evidence showing that our client had entered the US many times as a crewman and always left the US voluntarily. On his last entry as a crewman, he was told he was not medically/physically able to perform the duties of a crewman and the ship refused to employ him so our client remained in the US – he did not have the intent to stay in the US when he entered.

USCIS agreed with our evidence and approved the case. Our client can now remain in the US and live here with his wife and two children. The can continue to run their small business in Texas with the knowledge that they will never have to leave.

If you have an immigration case, contact Nelson & Nuñez.

We recently received an approval for an employment-based 245i adjustment (EB-3 category). We filed for adjustment of status two years ago; however, at the I-485 interview the USCIS officer advised that our client had a prior deportation order from 20 years ago. Apparently he hired a notario to assist him in obtaining work authorization. Unbeknownst to our client, the notario applied for asylum, our client was placed in immigration court without notice and he was ordered deported in absentia.

Because of the prior removal order, USCIS could not approve the I-485.

We filed a motion to reopen the prior removal order based on failure to serve our client and the immigration judge granted it. Then, we filed to terminate proceedings so the removal order would not effect a future adjustment of status filing.

Once the deportation order was out of the way, we re-filed the I-485 adjustment and re-paid the fees. The interview went smoothly. We provided evidence that our client was working for his current employer as a production plant manager and that he was eligible for adjustment under 245i. We also filed adjustment for his wife as a derivative. The USCIS officer was thorough in her examination and respectful in her questioning of our client, and the case was granted. Now the couple plans to file for their child's immigrant visa.

If you are considering adjustment of status, contact Nelson & Nunez to schedule a consultation. We routinely handle complicated immigration matters and we can help you better understand what steps need to be made in order to obtain permanent residency.

One of our Santa Ana clients recently received her conditional resident card based on her marriage to her US citizen husband. The couple began dating in Mexico almost 15 years ago but split up when the man went to the US to study at an American college on an F-1 visa. They began talking again in 2010 when they were both working in law-related jobs. He obtained his green card through employment and later naturalized to become a US citizen.

One year ago, the couple married and had a child shortly thereafter. The wife entered the US legally using a tourist visa about 18 months ago. We filed for adjustment of status after the marriage. We provided photos of the couple when they were younger along with the birth certificate of their daughter. We collected substantial amounts of evidence to prove the marriage was entered into in good faith.

At the interview, everything went smoothly. The officer with whom I’ve worked several times was professional, thorough and kind in his questioning and the interview lasted about 30 minutes. At the end, she was granted conditional resident status which means she’ll need to file an I-751 two years from now.

We were able to obtain a temporary I-551 stamp in her passport so they can take their infant daughter to Mexico to visit their family over the holidays. Her green card should arrive before then, but if it doesn’t she can use her temporary I-551 to gain admission into the US as a resident.

If you are an alien and have married a US citizen, schedule a consultation with Nelson & Nuñez. John Nelson and Jay Nuñez will personally meet with you and assess whether any routes to residency apply to your situation.

I recently attended a USCIS interview for adjustment of status in the Santa Ana office. Our clients were a married couple. The wife’s son was born in the United States and turned 21 years old in Spring. Although the wife entered the US illegally in the early 90s, she was 245i eligible based on a visa petition filed by a relative prior to April 1, 2001; therefore, she was able to adjust status to permanent resident without leaving the United States.

The husband married the wife when the stepson was still young enough; therefore, he was able to adjust status based on his US citizen stepson reaching 21 years of age. The husband entered the country legally so he was not required to pay the 245i penalty fee; he was eligible to adjust status through a concurrent visa petition/adjustment of status filing.

At the interview, the officer was very thorough and asked many questions about the couple’s marriage to make sure they didn’t marry solely for immigration purposes (i.e. so the husband could benefit from the stepson’s US citizen status). We provided ample evidence showing the couple had been together for almost 15 years including photos, tax returns, mortgage payment history, banking history, life insurance and car insurance. The interview lasted almost an hour, but both cases were approved by the end.

The couple was very happy with the result. They have been waiting to legalize their status for decades and now they have a path to citizenship. They plan to visit family in Mexico that they have not seen in over 15 years. If you have a close relative that is a US citizen or permanent resident and are curious about whether they can help you become a permanent resident, contact Nelson & Nuñez to schedule a consultation. John Nelson and Jay Nuñez will listen to your story and explain how the immigration laws apply to you.

The U Visa Unit, which also handles domestic abuse cases (VAWA) and victims of human trafficking (T visas), has suspended processing of I-918 forms at this time. The U Visa Unit is focusing attention on updating the U visa cap numbers. The VSC hopes to resume I-918 processing for alien victims of crime as soon as the cap number backlog is resolved.

As a general rule, alien spouses involved in bigamous marriages with US citizens are ineligible to receive immigration benefits based on their bigamous marriage. This means if an alien marries a US citizen who is already married to someone else, the marriage is considered illegitimate and cannot support a visa petition or green card.

In VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) cases, the rules are different. If the VAWA self-petitioner believed he or she was married but was subject to bigamy, the alien may still be eligible for VAWA benefits including a green card.

A VAWA self-petitioner involved in a bigamous marriage must show that:

1)     She believed the US citizen or permanent resident was free to enter into the marriage;
2)    The marriage was bona fide other than the bigamy;
3)    The marriage ceremony was actually performed.

It is often necessary to get creative in proving bona fide marriage in bigamy VAWA cases. Likewise, the self-petitioner must be meticulous in proving that s/he reasonably believed the citizen/resident spouse was free to marry – showing the spouse’s family members were supportive of the union and attended the wedding is helpful here.

As with any VAWA case, there are several other requirements the self-petitioner must meet including good moral character and satisfying certain time restrictions on filing if the marriage has terminated due to death or divorce.

If you are considering a domestic violence-based immigration case, contact Nelson & Nuñez to schedule a consultation. Jay Nuñez has personally handled many VAWA cases and can help you better understand the process and viability of your case.

One of our Fullerton clients was approved for a conditional resident green card based on her same sex marriage to her US citizen wife. The couple married earlier this year and we filed for the adjustment of status in May 2015. Six months later, we attended the adjustment of status interview at USCIS in Santa Ana.

Our clients have known each other for many years, but they were both previously married to men. It wasn't until the last couple years that they divorced and began a romantic relationship with each other.

With our concurrent visa petition/adjustment of status filing we were careful to provide proof of prior divorces along with ample evidence of our clients' good faith marriage. We included photos of holidays together with family and in-laws. 

Because same-sex adjustment of status cases are still relatively new, the interview was fairly long and the questioning was exhaustive but fair. John Nelson, who handled the adjustment interview, had known the interviewing officer for over two decades and the mood of the interview was congenial and professional. We were well-prepared to show documents supporting the bona fides of the marriage. The officer approved the case on the spot.

The couple is very happy about the result and looks forward to moving forward with their lives. Because their marriage is less than two years old, the non-citizen spouse was granted conditional residency for two years. The couple will be required to provided USCIS with further evidence of their relationship two years from now.

If you are a non-citizen involved in a same sex marriage, contact Nelson & Nuñez to schedule a consultation. Jay Nuñez and John Nelson will personally meet with you to help you better understand the process and whether you have a viable route to permanent residency.

VAWA self-petitioners must meet several requirements including proving that s/he resided with the US citizen or permanent resident spouse; s/he was battered or subjected to extreme cruelty during the marriage; the marriage was entered in good faith; and, s/he has good moral character.

The good moral character requirement can be an especially tricky issue in some cases. I have seen cases involving domestic abuse in which the VAWA self-petitioner was arrested and even charged with domestic violence. Oftentimes when the police arrive at a home involving a domestic dispute, they will arrest both parties if it is unclear who was at fault. Many domestic violence victims also have domestic violence charges on their criminal background check. In other cases, the abusive spouse coerces or threatens the victim into breaking the law - stealing or prostitution are not uncommon.

This can be problematic when trying to prove good moral character. If the VAWA self-petitioner lacks good moral character, the VAWA petition will be denied.

However, a conviction that would otherwise bar a showing of good moral character may be excused if the self-petitioner can show that s/he is eligible for a waiver and the criminal act was connected to the battering or extreme cruelty. The USCIS officer adjudicating the VAWA self-petition need not decide that the waiver would be granted; the officer merely needs to conclude that a criminal conviction waiver will be eligible for filing at the time of adjustment of status.

To establish that the criminal act was connected to the abuse, the VAWA self-petitioner must establish that the abuse "compelled or coerced" the alien to commit the crime such that "the self-petitioner would not have committed the crime if s/he had not been subjected to the abuse. VAWA self-petitioners should include a detailed explanation of what happened with the crime and the abuser's role in the situation. The causal relationship between the abuse and the crime should be explained thoroughly. Any corroborating evidence such as witness affidavits are helpful. Sometimes police reports might mention the abuser as well.

Because this is a common scenario and the Vermont Service Center has handled countless cases involving VAWA self-petitioners with criminal records, they are understanding of how domestic abuse relationships work and the massive power discrepancy involved; however, the filing must be well-organized and thorough in order to overcome any possible good moral character issues.

If you are considering a VAWA case, contact Nelson & Nuñez to schedule a consultation. Jay Nuñez has personally handled many VAWA cases and can help you better understand the process and viability of your case.

We recently received an approval for a U visa client from Ontario, California. The client came to us two years ago after hiring a notario to handle the processing. The notario filed an incomplete packet with USCIS, leaving out crucial forms and evidence.

USCIS sent a Request for Additional Evidence (“RFE”) to the notario, who requested more money from the client before she would fix the mistakes.

The notario filed the RFE response but left out a required form (Form I-192). The case was denied and the client came to us to fix everything.

We filed a motion to reopen explaining that our client did not speak English and the notario mishandled the case. USCIS agreed to reopen the case.

Two years later, a U visa became available when the fiscal year began, and we just received the approval for the U visa.

The U visa was approved for four years, but our client will be eligible to adjust status to permanent resident three years from now.

If you have been the victim of a major crime and cooperated with law enforcement to try to arrest and/or convict the criminals, you might be eligible for a U visa. Contact Nelson & Nuñez to schedule a consultation so we can evaluate your case and see if the U visa is a viable option.

We just received a DACA approval for one of our clients in Newport Beach. He has been in removal proceedings in the Los Angeles Immigration Court for several years and we were defending him against deportation.

When Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was enacted, we weren’t sure if we wanted to continue fighting his deportation case or pursue deferred action to terminate the removal process. After much deliberation, he decided to pursue DACA rather than defend against deportation.

Now that we’ve received the DACA approval, the next step is to attend his next immigration court hearing in Los Angeles and request that the immigration judge terminate proceedings.

If you are currently in deportation proceedings in Los Angeles or San Diego, contact Nelson & Nuñez to schedule a consultation. With over 45 years of combined immigration experience, we can help you better understand the options available to you.

Sine 1997, California law has permitted a criminal court judge to offer deferred entry of judgment to qualifying defendants charged with a first, minor drug offense. The DEJ process was meant to help first time offenders avoid the debilitating consequences of a drug conviction. Thousands of immigrants accepted the deferred entry of judgment program only to find that, under immigration law, their cases were still considered convictions, and they were still subject to deportation and other serious consequences.

Under federal immigration law, a successfully completed DEJ remains an extremely damaging drug "conviction." It causes deportability and inadmissibility, and makes it impossible for the spouse or child of a US citizen to obtain lawful resident status.
Immigration law provides that a conviction occurs once there is a guilty plea or finding of guilt, coupled with a punishment including assignment to a drug program. Whether California later classifies it as a non-conviction is irrelevant under immigration law.

To eliminate a conviction for immigration purposes, the plea must be withdrawn for cause, based on some legal error in the proceedings - for example the defendant was improperly represented by counsel or was misinformed about the consequences of pleading guilty.

In Penal Code § 1203.43 the Legislature acknowledges that the DEJ statute misinformed defendants, including all non-citizens, about the consequences of pleading guilty, and for that reason deems the plea legally invalid. Withdrawal of the guilty plea is thus for cause, based on this legal defect.

Under Penal Code § 1203.43, the withdrawn guilty plea should satisfy federal immigration law and allow non-citizens to avoid severe immigration consequences stemming from their DEJ cases.

If you have pled guilty to a deferred entry of judgment case and wish to withdraw the plea, contact Nelson and Nuñez, PC.

We just received an I-140 approval for a nurse of one of our San Diego healthcare facility clients. We started the case earlier this year with a prevailing wage determination filing. Once we received the prevailing wage from the Department of Labor, we filed the job posting at the worksite for ten days.

Although the nurse candidate was educated in the US and had a US nursing license, we were surprised to learn during our preparations that she was required to obtain a visa screen. The visa screen for nurses is generally used to ensure that foreign-trained nurses are qualified to practice nursing in the United States.

We filed the I-140 last month and used the premium processing program to receive an approval within two weeks. She falls into the worldwide EB-3 category (she is not from Mexico, Philippines, India or China), so her wait time is approximately 1-2 months until a visa will be available.

We will start preparing all the adjustment of status documents now for her and her husband.

If you are considering an employment based immigration case, contact Nelson & Nuñez to schedule a consultation. We work with companies of all sizes and industries in devising immigration strategies for their employees. We will help you better understand the viable options, timelines and fees associated with the immigration process.

Governor Brown signed legislation requiring local police and prosecutors to sign the form I-918 supplement B - the form required for U visa certification - for alien victims of serious crimes. This makes California the first state to adopt such a stance.

Until now, different police departments and district attorney offices had different policies on when and under what circumstances they would certify U visa cases. In Kern county, Sheriff Donny Youngblood admitted he had only signed 2% of U visa certifications and only in cases where they needed the witness to testify in court.

The U visa program was created in 2000 to encourage undocumented victims of crime to cooperate with law enforcement in the capture and prosecution of criminals. If an alien is the victim of a serious crime and helps law enforcement investigate the perpetrators, she is eligible for a U visa which can ultimately turn into lawful permanent residency. As part of the process, the alien must have a law enforcement official sign off that the alien was helpful and cooperative. Oftentimes the law enforcement certification is the most difficult part of the U visa process and different law enforcement agencies have different policies on when they would sign off. From my experience District Attorneys and judges are often helpful and willing to cooperate, but if the perpetrators were never apprehended and the case was never initiated by a prosecutor, the police or sheriff's office were the only agencies eligible to sign off. Many police departments were reluctant to sign off under such circumstances.

The new law signed by Governor Brown should standardize the U visa certification process within the law enforcement community.

If you have been the victim of a crime, even if it was many years ago, contact Nelson & Nuñez. You may be eligible to pursue a U visa so you can live and work in the United States legally.

We just received an I-485 Adjustment approval for the husband of a US citizen. The couple lives in Los Angeles and the marriage based adjustment interview was conducted in downtown Los Angeles.

The couple met a couple years ago and began dating shortly thereafter. They moved in together and got married in January 2015. Because the husband entered the US legally on a visitor visa in 2014, he was eligible to adjust his status in the United States rather than returning to his home country of Brazil to consular process.

We filed the I-130 visa petition and the I-485 application concurrently along with the rest of the required forms and evidence establishing the client’s eligibility for a green card.

The interview went smoothly; however, the officer was unable to make a decision at the conclusion of the interview. A couple weeks later we received the approval.

Because the marriage was less than two years old at the time of green card approval, the client will have a two year conditional green card. He will be required to file an I-751 during the 90 day period immediately preceding the expiration date. USCIS will want to see evidence that the couple is still living together and conducting themselves as one would expect of a married couple.

If you are married to a US citizen and are interested in obtaining lawful permanent resident status, contact Nelson & Nuñez to schedule a consultation. Attorneys Jay Nuñez and John Nelson will personally meet with you during a confidential consultation so you can better understand your situation and which options are viable.

We just received an approval for an I-485 for a client in Texas. The client was approved for U status over three years ago. After living in the US in U visa status for three years, she was eligible to apply for permanent residency.

We filed the I-485 application for permanent residency along with evidence that she has lived in the US for the past three years and proof that it is in the public interest to allow her to become a permanent resident. The case was pending for six months before we received the approval.

The client is very excited to become a permanent resident. We have represented this family throughout the U visa process, consular processing and green card applications for the past five years or so. We are still waiting for the parents' green cards to be approved. Their cases were slightly more complex which likely accounts for the further delays.

If you are curious about the U visa and would like to schedule a consultation, contact Nelson & Nu

We recently received an approval for an I-130 visa petition filed by an US citizen wife for her husband. The I-130 was filed in April 2015, and the case was approved without an RFE (request for evidence) from USCIS.

The couple has been married for a year and a half, and they live in Riverside. The wife has two children from a previous marriage, but the couple has no children together. The next step is for us to file the I-601A provisional waiver. This will likely take a couple months to put together, but we hope to file before the holidays.

Although the couple does not have any children together, the US citizen wife has her whole family here and she would experience extreme hardship if her husband were forced to return to Mexico. As part of our preparation of the I-601A waiver, we will explain the couple's story and the difficulties they would face if the I-601A is not granted.

If you are curious about your immigration situation and would like to schedule a consultation, contact Nelson & Nuñez to schedule a confidential meeting. Attorneys John Nelson and Jay Nuñez will personally meet with you to help you better understand your situation and the options available to you.

We received an approval for an H-1b non-immigrant visa we filed in April 2015. The case was pending for an unusually long amount of time. The client employee's OPT status was set to expire on October 1, 2015. Therefore, in mid-September, when we still didn't have an adjudication, we reached out to our contact in the USCIS Ombudsman's office. We also filed for premium processing to ensure that we would have an adjudication before October 1st.

We were very excited when we received the approval on September 22nd. The client was happy that the approval arrived before the Premium Processing fee was cashed. Instead USCIS returned the check.

The H-1b was for a dietitian at a health care nursing facility. The employee obtained a Master's of Science in nutrition and food management  from an American University. He is a certified dietitian with extensive experience.

If your company is contemplating the H-1b process for an employee, contact Nelson & Nuñez to discuss your situation and determine whether an H-1b is the right option for you. Jay Nuñez and John Nelson will personally discuss the process during a confidential consultation.

We recently received an approval for an I-130 we filed for a US citizen on behalf of her father. The father is currently in the United States and in removal proceedings. The daughter naturalized as a US citizen earlier this year, and we immediately filed visa petitions for the parents.

Because the parents entered the US legally, they are eligible to adjust status and we already received an approval for the wife’s adjustment of status. However, because the father has pending removal proceedings in Los Angeles we were unable to file the I-485 concurrently with the I-130 visa petition. Now that we have an approved I-130 visa petition we can request that the immigration judge terminate proceedings so the father can adjust status through USCIS.

If you have an immigration situation and are curious about the options available to you moving forward, contact Nelson & Nuñez to schedule a consultation. Attorneys Jay Nuñez and John Nelson will personally meet with you to help you better understand your situation and how best to proceed.