Mr. D came to the US in 2010 as a student and he graduated with a master's degree in 2014. While in college, he joined a church and baptized.
He applied for asylum in the fall of 2015 and he just received approval.
Mr. D actually did not do very well at interview, making several mistakes and contradicting himself on several points. At the end of the interview our attorney managed to rectify the case and now Mr. D is a very happy man.
Mr. D's parents are also our clients.
Our client was refused immigrant visa filed by her sister. The consulate claims that our client entered into a fraudulent marriage with her USC, ex-husband. The approved I-130 filed by her ex-husband was later revoked by the USCIS. Five years later when client went to the immigrant visa interview filed by her USC sister, the consulate refused the visa and asked her to file waiver.
Waiver is very difficult to get.
Properly document the extreme hardship and persuade the USCIS to grant the waiver are one of the most difficult types of cases.
We have not lost any fraud waiver cases this year.
Early 2017, we had a consultation with an anxious mom, her two children just got denied for their I-485 green card applications. This mom and her husband immigrated to the United States through their oldest child. She had applied I-130s for two young kids but the priority dates were not current at that time. In order to avoid her family apart, they decided to have two kids come to the U.S. with them under B-2 visas. After arriving, they consulted a very experienced immigration attorney who also practices in San Francisco Bay Area. The lawyer told them they could change the kids’ status to F-1 students first and wait for the priority date. In doing so, both kids could remain in the U.S. with their parents and get their green cards here.
Unfortunately, this seemingly workable plan was in trouble when the change status applications were denied in August 2015. Two children immediately lost their status as their B2 visa expired and F-1 student status were denied. The lawyer charged them money to file motion to reconsider/reopen. He assured clients that their children would be considered in legal status while the motion was pending. As of today, clients have not heard anything from the USCIS about the outcome of the motion.
In December 2015 when visa numbers became current, the lawyer helped them to submit I-485s. Several months later, two children were interviewed by the USCIS. In early 2017, USCIS denied their I-485s on the ground that, at the time of I-485 filing, they did not have valid legal status in the US. Their lawyer then suggested them to file another motion to contest USCIS decision. Finally, the mother realized that maybe her lawyer was wrong all this time. She was referred by her friend to talk to us about her case.
Being an immigration lawyer, one must be clear and understand the immigration rules thoroughly. Details determine success or failure. First, at the time the B-2 visa expires, the school has not yet started for more than 30 days. From status changed from B-2 to F, USCIS allows when the school anticipated start date is within 30 days after B visa expires. If more than 30 days gap in between, the application will be denied even the client had submitted it before B visa expires. Second, even a motion was filed; client will not have valid legal status in the US. Client cannot file I-485 during this time. Finally, if client followed her former lawyer's advice to challenge the I-485 denials, her two children would have been in much worse situation today.
We changed the strategy completely. It took less than ten months to have the case succeeded. Today, two kids have received their green card.
Do you still trust just any lawyers and follow their advice?
1. We won 3 asylum grants in the past month in immigration court. All of them are based on religious ground. Asylum office referred these cases for "lack of detail" or "inconsistencies). We all know that many times asylum office exaggerates minor issues to deny or refer applicants to immigration court. We have maintained 100% success record in immigration court this year.
2. H-1B approved after Level 1 wage RFE
Level 1 wage RFE is new and feared for this year’s H-1B. USCIS did not believe positions with level 1 wage are specialty H-1B positions as they are only entry-level with simple job duties. Our client is a small size company and the beneficiary is a MBA graduate. The case is difficult even in usual practice. Moreover, our RFE notice came in early September and no one expected this. Thankfully, our experienced attorney, after reading the notice carefully, found out the direction of how to response. We argued the position is both entry-level and professional (specialty). It’s normal some positions are entry level but professional knowledge needed. An entry level position does not necessarily mean it is not a professional position. We prepared documents to show the position is entry level with close supervision, as well as specialized and professional. Sure enough, USCIS approved our H-1B in less than two weeks after we submitted the response. Having an experienced lawyers’ help brings better result to the case.
In many cases, the success or failure of H-1B application depends not only on the qualifications of the applicant but also the petitioning company, the job and the salary. Most important of all how does your lawyer present your application to persuade the USCIS.
3. E-2 extension approval
We have got an approval for the second extension of our E-2 treaty investor visa. Our client actually did not do much business at her first extension and she did even less this time around. Clearly USCIS has placed less strict standard for E-2 visa than L-1 visa.
4. L-1 extension for 3 company managers
We got 3 approvals for managers from two companies. USCIS issued RFE (Request for Evidence) for two of the applicants. We simply wrote a letter to the USCIS addressing its questions and concerns as we did not have any new evidence to submit. In both cases the USCIS approved the petitions soon.
Case No. 1
The USCIS asylum office had denied this client's asylum application and the US government was trying to deport her. But we showed the court that this person was a member of a church that was persecuted in her country and that if she were deported, she faced at least a 10% chance of being persecuted.
We appeared in court with three witnesses from the church. We had submitted written testimony from each of them. Because we introduced the witnesses to the court the government attorney agreed that our case was very strong and told the judge that he believed our client. The judge granted asylum in about 90 minutes.
This client will now be able to file petition for her husband who was ordered deported but remained in the US for the past 10 years.
Case No. 2
This is case is based on forced abortion and insertion of IUD. Client had an abortion in 1990 and subsequently had an IUD inserted without her consent. The Asylum office denied her case for inconsistencies and lack of details.
This is a very difficult case because the abortion was 27 years ago and her country has since changed it policy on how many child its citizens may legally have. In addition, client gave inconsistent testimonies not only in asylum interview but also at her immigration court hearing. Finally the court interpreter made several important mistakes at her first day hearing (this case was continued after first day hearing and it concluded this week). We have to listen to the hearing tape to point out the interpreter mistakes; to call a doctor to testify about the effect of an IUD.
In the end, the judge believed our client and concluded that even client's country may have changed it family planning policy, our client suffered past persecution and her IUD continues to cause pain.
Experience, competence and care for client are no substitute in any immigration cases, especially in immigration court.
Our client entered the US from Mexico without inspection in 2016. He was detained and released later after he passed credible fear interview.
We represented him in the immigration court for asylum. The case has been continued several times but when he finally got his day in court, it only took about one hour for the judge to grant his asylum application.
Needless to say our attorney has prepared the case extremely well and government counsel waived appeal. The judge made the decision to grant in just one hour.
Not all immigration lawyers are created equal. Many immigration lawyers cannot handle court cases.
Be sure to have an immigration lawyer with extensive experience in litigating cases and knows the country conditions and practices to represent you in immigration court.
A Chinese woman hired an immigration lawyer and filed her asylum application about 2 years ago. She was informed by asylum office that her case was under investigation. Frustrated for lack of progress, she hired us to sue the USCIS San Francisco Asylum Office for not interviewing her.
We filed the lawsuit in mid August and now the asylum interview has been set for Mid-October.
Lawsuit continues to be the most effective method to resolve delayed USCIS actions.
Our client entered the US in 2010. he later married twice with US citizens and applied for green card based on the marriages. The USCIS twice denied the I-130 visa petitions claiming insufficient evidence to support the petitions.
Client was placed in removal proceedings in 2011.
Based on changed circumstances client applied for asylum in 2014.
After a very short hearing, without the need to even call any witnesses, the immigration judge granted our client's asylum application.
We represent clients in immigration proceedings nationwide. Please contact us if you wish to consult or retain us in your immigration proceedings.
Ms. Yun and her child came to the US in 2015 under B2 visa. She filed asylum shortly after she arrived and she received asylum approval recently.
Ms. Yun had some trouble attending her church in her home country. Nothing too serious. In the US, she continued her religious activities and at the interview, the asylum officer spent asked her many detailed questions about her religion. Ms. Yun was well prepared and she did not give the asylum officer any reason to doubt her credibility.
You do not need to have suffered past persecution in your home country to receive asylum approval. As long as you have reasonable fear of future persecution, you may still receive asylum approval.
Hongke ZHANG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-70930. Decided: November 09, 2004
Client married his US citizen wife about 2 years ago. His wife is 16 years older than him. They filed the application themselves and had their first interview in 2016. 6 months after the first interview, the USCIS scheduled them for the second interview(marriage fraud interview).
They were nervous so they hired us.
you know the rest: we discussed their case extensively and prepared them for the interview.
They were separated in the interview. Although there were some minor discrepancies and some other small issues, overall they did well and the USCIS approved the husband's green card application 3 weeks after the interview.
In another case, client was ordered deported by the immigration court and her petition for review was dismissed by the 9th Circuit of Appeals. Client married her husband while her case was pending at the 9th Circuit.
We took over the case 2 years after the 9th Circuit dismissed her petition for review.
you know the rest: we got her waivers approved and she went back to China and last week she received her immigrant visa in Guangzhou, China.
We are extremely good at difficult cases. There are many cases that are seemingly impossible in other places that were resolved by us.
If you have any difficult cases(we can handle not so difficult cases, too), please contact us.
An asylum seeker filed asylum in the summer of 2014 in Los Angeles. She hired a lawyer. But her lawyer filed a very simple application, without any supporting evidence and declaration. Last summer She hired another "lawyer" who claimed he could get her interview fast. After she paid $3000 that "lawyer" disappeared.
In early February of 2017, she moved to the Bay Area and hired us.
We requested her case from LA asylum office and 2 weeks later we got interview notice.
Upon reviewing her file, we found many problems. We had to redraft her declaration, submit missing evidence and prepare her for the interview.
Hard work paid off. Client's application was approved two weeks after the interview.
If her case were still in LA, she may have to wait for another 3 years for the interview. And with the condition of her file, she would certainly get a denial of her application.
1. Two I-526(investors' visa petition) were approved yesterday by the USCIS without Request for Evidence. These two petitions were filed around November of 2015.
2. Mr. Hui received asylum approval after interview. Hui came from Guangxi, China. He filed his asylum application in early 2015 in San Francisco. Mr. Hui has 3 children, one from his first marriage, one from his current wife's previous marriage and the third one from his current wife. His wife experienced two abortions after she married Mr. Hui and finally gave birth to their first child in 2014.
3. We have a waiver case approved last week. The case is an I-601 waiver for overstaying after deportation.
4. We also have a permission to apply after deportation approved last week. Client has outstanding deportation order and she lost her 9th Circuit Appeals review. She changed lawyer after she lost the federal court review.
5. Ms. Yang is from Shandong. She filed her asylum on January, 2015. She participated religious activities before she came to the US as a student and she has continued her religious activities in the US. She received her asylum approval in February of 2017.
Our client came from China. She studied English in college and went on to study Buddhist as a graduate student. After her master's degree she came to the US as an exchange visitor(J-1).
A temple in the Bay Area wishes to employ her as a Prior.
Under the immigration law, some religious workers may be eligible for immigrant visa if they meet certain requirements.
We filed the petition last July and today we received the approval notice without RFE.
Client entered the US in 2013 and applied for asylum in San Francisco. The asylum office did not approve her application, alleging that our client did not have medical documents and inconsistencies in her application.
At hearing in immigration court, our lawyer presented a well prepared client and the whole hearing lasted about 2.5 hours and the immigration judge granted the asylum application.
Now client can file application for her family to join her in the US.
Even in Trump era, the basic immigration law and regulations are the same and a well prepared client with superb representation by a skillful lawyer will make the difference.
We welcome new clients to contact us for consultation(as always if we are retained within one week of consultation, the $200 consultation fee will be credited back to client). If you are outside of San Francisco and you wish to do a phone consultation, you can make $200 consultation on our website and then schedule a time to discuss your case.
Contact us:
Baughman & Wang, Attorneys at Law
111 Pine Street, Suite 1225
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel. (415)576-9923
Fax (415)576-9929
Email: justin@lawbw.com
Fremont Office
39650 Liberty Street, Suite 240
Fremont, CA 94538
Fax (510)623-9498
Los Angeles (213)915-6568
Website: www.lawbw.com
USCIS approved one of our direct EB5 investments in Nevada.
Our client invested $1,000,000 in a car wash business owned by his relatives. We carefully designed the investment structure and corporate structure in order to fit the needs of direct EB5 investment. Without request for evidence, USCIS approved this petition in 17 months.
While most EB5 investments are made in regional center projects, there are some direct EB5 investments. We have done direct investments ranging from restaurant, after school, car wash, import/export and other types of businesses. So far we have had 100% approval record (this also includes our regional center EB5 case).
If you wish to consult with us for your EB5 cases, please contact us at justin@lawbw.com or call 415-576-9923.
As of today we have maintained 100% success rate for our I-526 and I-829 petitions.
USCIS announced today that there are 20,000 I-526 petitions pending with the USCIS. This number of pending petitions alone will need at least 5 years to digest(if you think 4000 a year investors actually use the visa number, not counting their family members).
USCIS also announced today that it will begin interview for I-829. randomly selected I-829 applicants may receive interview notices soon.
Last week we received an I-526 approval. This case received request for evidence. The USCIS asked about the source of fund. In particular, the $500,000 investment was from a Hong Kong company and the company did not have any business and tax records. To make things worse, the investment was wired into the company account from the company's CEO one day before the company wired the money to the EB5 petitioner.
We recently represented a doctor in a case where his former employee filed claims for overtime, rest period and meal time violations. The former employee also claims for waiting time penalty, holiday pay and business reimbursement. Total claimed amount was more than $50,000.
We had a meeting last year before the labor commissioner but we could not settle the case.
Under California labor law, if the employer and the employee could not settle the dispute at the meeting, the matter will be referred to a formal hearing where a hearing officer takes the testimonies of both parties, witnesses and review any evidence submitted.
After two hours, the hearing officer concluded the hearing.
We just received the award: former employee took nothing from the employer. The decision discredited former employee's testimony and found her claims were not believable.
It should be noted that if our client is found to owe her anything, the waiting time penalty would substantially increase the award.
We represent both employer and employee in labor(wage) dispute.
We recently got an approval for our direct EB5 client.
Client put $1 million and her relative put another $1 million to buy a restaurant in San Jose, California. The company is also doing other business. We helped clients working on incorporation, other business registration, business plan, source and path of funds.
USCIS approved the first investor in about 18 months.
Three months ago USCIS approved another of our direct EB5 case.
If you know exactly what business you want to do and you have friends/relatives to assist you in the United States, direct investment is very viable.