Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: RFE Strategies for O-1B Cases By Elektra B. Yao, Esq.

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: RFE Strategies for O-1B Cases By Elektra B. Yao, Esq.

    RFE Strategies for O-1B Cases

    by


    All immigration attorneys hate the dreaded Requests for Further Evidence (RFE). Current RFEs include boilerplate language, a misapplication of the law, and a total disregard for the documentary evidence to prove the evidentiary criteria.

    It is important to empower the client by presenting the various options to ensure that the client understands that RFEs are not a reflection of the strength of their case, but sometimes they are issued because of the lack of training of the immigration officer, the rapidity in which the immigration officer has to adjudicate, or because of the immigration officer’s misunderstanding of the law and the legal principles of immigration law.

    As frustrating as RFEs may be, immigration attorneys and their clients have options:

    SCOPS ( Service Center Operations) :

    A SCOPS email is an email, which concisely outlines the evidence that USCIS ignored, USCIS’s misapplication of the law, and includes some case law to bolster legal arguments. This tactic is utilized to encourage USCIS to issue an updated RFE. However, there is no guarantee that USCIS will issue an updated RFE or even respond to the SCOPS email. However, a good rule of thumb is to wait at least one month before beginning to gather evidence, as USCIS may be slow to respond.

    In the email, it is also important to remind USCIS of the proper standard for administrative proceedings: As the Service is well aware, the proper standard for most administrative proceedings, including O1 visa petitions, is a mere more likely than not "preponderance of the evidence" (11.1 (3) Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof, Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM).) AFM Section 33.9 (1) clarifies the lesser standard by which artists are to be held in these petitions, stating, "USCIS has interpreted the term ‘distinction’ as it relates to O1 artists and entertainers to be identical to the prior H-1B standard for prominent aliens."

    A SCOPS email is sent to: scopsrfe@dhs.gov

    The email subject line should include language similar to the following: Supervisory Review Request- I-129 (RFE VSC) and/or the petition’s receipt number.

    WITHDRAWING THE CASE AND REFILING AT A LATER DATE:

    One option would be to withdraw the case and file at a later date with new evidence and filing with or without premium processing (depending on how the initial case was filed).

    The risks with this are:

    · The Beneficiary may not have new evidence;

    · Withdrawing the case may leave the Beneficiary out of status;

    · USCIS may just reissue a similar RFE;

    · The Beneficiary may incur additional filing fees;

    · And more.

    The case should be withdrawn closer to the RFE due date, just in case USCIS decides to issue an updated RFE based on the SCOPS email.

    SUBMITTING THE RFE RESPONSE:

    If you decide to submit the RFE response, give yourself ample time to strategize and develop a game plan. Carefully read through the RFE notice to assess the inconsistencies, misapplication of the law, or incorrect standard applied.

    Successful RFEs tend to:

    · Re-argue previously submitted evidence;

    · Include new evidence; and

    · Include case law to educate the immigration officer.

    RFEs are time consuming and demoralizing. However, with effective planning and strategizing they can be successfully overcome.


    About The Author

    Elektra is the founder and principal attorney at The Law Office of Elektra B. Yao a full service, comprehensive immigration and general practice law firm. Ms. Yao is admitted to the New York Bar and she practices U.S. Immigration and Nationality law and Deportation Defense in all jurisdictions of the United States of America. Ms. Yao earned her Bachelor’s Degree in Communication Arts from Marymount Manhattan College in NYC in 2008 and earned her Juris Doctor from Lewis and Clark Law School, a nationally ranked, top-tier law school in 2011. In 2010, she studied in London under Loukas Mistelis, the Professor and Director of the School of Arbitration at the prestigious UK law school Queen Mary University. Ms. Yao also studied at the University of Beijing Law School, the leading Chinese law school, where she earned a Certificate in Chinese business and civil law; along with studying at the prestigious Sorbonne University in Paris, France and in Florence, Italy where she earned Certificates in Comparative Law. Ms. Yao was also invited to study Eastern European Law at Eotvos Lorand University, the best law school in Hungary. She has also completed all of the coursework for a Master’s in Law in European and Spanish Law from the University of Salamanca. She holds multiple Certificates in Italian and European Immigration Law and Policy. Ms. Yao spent several years working for leading boutique immigration law firms where she developed her expertise in employment based and family based immigration law. Ms. Yao is highly experienced and proficient in US and EU Immigration Law and Policy. As such, Ms. Yao has provided her immigration legal services to businesses and individuals in the US, Italy, Spain, and Cote d’Ivoire. Ms. Yao has lived, studied, and worked internationally in the US, the EU, and Africa and she is fluent in French, Italian, Spanish, and English.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.


    • ImmigrationLawBlogs
      #1
      Editing a comment
      Some employment based RFE's that I have received have been openly biased. One of the most egregious ones, which I received several years ago, was not actually an RFE , but a Notice of Intent to Revoke, in an EB-1 extraordinary ability case. In that case (among many other indications of bias and open refusal to consider favorable evidence) the NOIR author refused to consider a first prize that the applicant had one in her field from a long standing, well known US organization which had previously awarded prizes (in unrelated fields) to two of the most famous women in all of American history.

      The USCIS examiner who authored the NOIR (whom I eventually was able to identify by name and to determine that he was in fact male, as I had obviously suspected for the following reason) disregarded my client's prize on the grounds that it was awarded by a women's organization and therefore somehow didn't count, in his view. Eventually, after a long and difficult battle, that case was finally resolved favorably.

      There is good reason to suspect that many of the hurricane of H-1B RFE's received this year may also be motivated by anti-immigrant bias in general, in keeping with the basic outlook of the Trump admistration, even if the bias is (at least slightly) better concealed in most instances than it was in the example I gave above. How to respond to an openly unfair or biased RFE has always been a problem, and will no doubt be an even bigger one in the coming years of the Trump administration.

      One additional strategy, besides those which the author mentions above, is to request premium processing at the time of answering the RFE, assuming that the case was originally filed as a regular processing case. That would assure having the case looked at by a different USCIS examiner from the one who issued the RFE.

      Roger Algase
      Attorney at Law
      algaselex@gmail.com
      Last edited by ImmigrationLawBlogs; 10-17-2017, 08:56 PM.
    Posting comments is disabled.

Categories

Collapse

article_tags

Collapse

There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
    ImmigrationDaily
    The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process by H. Ronald Klasko At Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP, we represent businesses, individuals, and organizations across the world with various aspects of employment-based immigration. The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa Program is one program through which we help wealthy foreign nationals with no employment sponsorship or family in the United States gain permanent residence status. In the infographic below, we highlight the steps of the EB-5 program and the investment requirements associated with it, so individuals and companies alike can understand the program before coming to Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP for assistance. This post originally appeared on www.klaskolaw.com. Reprinted with permission. About The Author H. Ronald Klasko is recognized by businesses, universities, hospitals, scholars, investors and other lawyers as one of the country's leading immigration lawyers. A founding member of Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP and its Managing Partner, he has practiced immigration law exclusively over three decades. Under his leadership, the firm was chosen with five other firms by Chambers Global in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 as the top U.S. business, hospital and university immigration law firm. Ron, himself, was named as the world's most respected corporate immigration lawyer (The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers 2007 and 2008) and one of the country's top immigration lawyers by clients and other immigration lawyers who said he is revered for coming up with unique arguments that can save a clients (Chambers Global). A former National President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Ron served as General...
    08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
  • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
    ImmigrationDaily
    Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
    08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
  • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
    ImmigrationDaily
    Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
    08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
  • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
    ImmigrationDaily

    Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

    by


    On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

    USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

    08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
  • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
    ImmigrationDaily
    Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
    08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
  • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
    ImmigrationDaily
    USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
    08-14-2018, 10:51 AM
Working...
X