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.
We just received an approval for one of our Chinese restaurant EB5 investors. It took the CIS about 21 months to adjudicate the application. But it is approved without request for evidence.
The Investor is a graduate student studying in the US. He received the investment money from his family. The restaurant is a new business located in a $1 million investment area(not the TEA). Investor invested $1 million.
Although most EB5 investors choose to invest in regional centers, there are increasing number of investors invest their own business(direct investment). If a investor knows well exactly what he or she wants, with the help of trusted partners in the US, direct investment is a good alternative to regional center EB5.
As of today, we have represented many regional center investors and direct EB5 investors with 100% success record!
Client married a US citizen in 2009, filed I-130 and I-485 in 2010. USCIS delayed the adjudication for 5 years without a decision. Client asked the USCIS many times without any positive response.
We asked client several times to file lawsuit against the USCIS. Finally in may, 2015 client decided to sue the government. We filed the lawsuit in May and within 2 weeks we receive interview notice; within 5 days after the interview we received the approval notices.
Once again mandamus action is the best way to compel the USCIS to act.
Ms. Xiong received her conditional green card in 2011 She did not file petition to remove the condition until 10 months after the deadline. At that time she was referred to immigration court for removal hearing.
Ms. Xiong had separated from her husband in early 2013. Her husband received the first notice from immigration court but he did not tell Ms. Xiong. He claimed that he did not receive the hearing notice from the court.
Ms. Xiong failed to appear in her master hearing in January, 2015 and she was ordered removed to China by the judge.
Ms. Xiong was told the removal order in late February, 2015 and she immediately retained our service.
The Immigration judge granted our motion to reopen the proceedings and Ms. Xiong now has a chance to get her green card back.
Ms. Gao was refereed to immigration court in 2003 after her asylum was denied. She showed up for the first master hearing without lawyer. She later found a US citizen boyfriend and hired a lawyer who charged her low fee to help her in court. The attorney told her she does not need to go to court as she was about to marry the US citizen.
Ms. Gao failed to appear in her second master hearing and the judge ordered her removed.
Two months ago Ms. Gao came to our office asking for help. gao married another man, also US citizen, in 2011. She later discovered that she had an outstanding deportation order.
Gao does not want to return to her country for visa processing. The only way to get her green card is to reopen her immigration court case.
This is very difficult case because the order was issued 11 years ago and she did not hire an attorney to do anything until now.
We filed our motion one month ago and the immigration judge granted our motion to reopen the case last week.
Ms. Gao is saved, at least procedurally.
It is very difficult to reopen old immigration court cases. We have done it many times because we know how to find the right facts and use the facts to the full benefit of our cases.
Mr. Cao entered the US on a K-1 visa in 2003. He married the sponsor and filed I-485, adjustment of status. His application was approved and later his I-751, removal of condition, was also approved. His wife divorced him in 2006.
During the marriage, Cao's wife gave birth to a child. Cao is not the father.
After the divorce, cao married another woman in China. Cao and his second wife has a child together, born while he was still married to his first wife.
In 2012, Cao, still a permanent resident, filed I-130 visa petition for his wife and child. The USCIS scheduled an interview in early 2014. At this time, Cao retained us.
After we reviewed the case, we determined that the USCIS had every reason to suspect that the first marriage was for immigration purposes. Not only cao may lose his I-130 visa petition for his wife and child, he may face deportation for marriage fraud.
Preparation for the interview was time consuming. Unfortunately client did not have much documentation to support the first marriage.
After the interview, we waited for more than 7 months. Then we contacted the USCIS director for status. two weeks later we received the second interview notice.
Again we prepared the client for this interview.
The second interview was conducted by an officer and her supervisor. Lots of questions were asked about the first marriage. Client was well prepared.
Shortly after the second interview, USCIS approved Cao's I-130 visa petition.
Lesson learned here: a devoted and competent lawyer makes a huge difference.
Board of Immigration Appeals granted our motion to reopen and remand in a case where our client was represented by another counsel who committed terrible error which prejudiced client in her removal proceedings. The BIA found that although the motion is untimely, we submitted sufficient evidence to toll the deadline based on ineffective assistance of counsel claim against the attorney.
Within 5 months of the remand, we successfully helped our client to receive permanent resident status based on her marriage to an LPR husband. (Click to see)
We won an appeal for our extraordinary ability petition for client: Administrative Appeal Office (AAO) recently sustained our appeal and granted the I-140 petition. Client is a famous Chinese commentator. His I-140 was denied by the Service Center after RFE. We successfully overcame the grounds stated in the denial and won the appeal. For the AAO decision, please click to see.
BIA has found that the immigration judge committed “clear error in finding the respondent to be not credible”. The BIA set aside the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination as clearly erroneous. Now the respondent has another chance to win his asylum in court. (Click to see)
Board of Immigration Appeals recently remanded an I-130 appeal for further proceedings. We represented our client in his I-130 petition. CIS denied his petition. The attached decision from BIA outlined the basic facts of the case and CIS flowed decision denying the I-130 visa petition. (Click to see)
So far, we have been successful in all of our BIA appeals from San Francisco CIS denials.
In a precedent decision in which our firm represented the petitioner, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Zhang v. Ashcroft rejected immigration judge’s finding that the respondent could avoid persecution by practicing his belief in the privacy of his own home. The court states that to require respondent “to practice his belief in secret is contrary to our basic principles of religious freedom and the protection of religious refugees”. This case is very important in that the Asylum Office cannot deny asylum application by asking an applicant to practice his belief at home in order to avoid persecution. To read the case, please click the link:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1458856.html
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,CASELAW,USA_CA_9,CHN,41c6d2fe4,0.html
A BIA precedent decision established that 237(a)(1)(H) waiver is available to alien who was not in possession of valid immigrant visa but did not commit fraud. Prior to this case, alien would not receive waiver under this provision because ICE would not charge the alien with fraud if it thought the alien would seek waiver under this law. To read the case, please click the link here.
2. In a precedent decision in which our firm represented the petitioner, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Zhang v. Ashcroft rejected immigration judge’s finding that the respondent could avoid persecution by practicing his belief in the privacy of his own home. The court states that to require respondent “to practice his belief in secret is contrary to our basic principles of religious freedom and the protection of religious refugees”. This case is very important in that the Asylum Office cannot deny asylum application by asking an applicant to practice his belief at home in order to avoid persecution. To read the case, please click the link:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1458856.html
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,CASELAW,USA_CA_9,CHN,41c6d2fe4,0.html