Case Studies

Real situations. Real results.

Every case is different, but these examples show how we approach common immigration challenges. Details have been changed to protect client privacy.

Family-based

Spouse petition with a complex immigration history

Situation

A U.S. citizen wanted to petition for their spouse, who had previously overstayed a visitor visa by several years before departing the country. The couple was unsure whether the overstay would result in a bar to reentry and whether a waiver would be needed.

Approach

We conducted a detailed analysis of the spouse's travel and immigration history, identified the applicable inadmissibility ground, and prepared an I-601A provisional unlawful presence waiver supported by evidence of extreme hardship to the U.S. citizen spouse. We coordinated the waiver filing with the consular processing timeline.

Outcome

The waiver was approved and the spouse completed consular processing and received their immigrant visa. The couple was reunited in the U.S. within 14 months of starting the process.

Key takeaway: An overstay doesn't always mean a case is hopeless — but it requires careful analysis and a strong waiver application.
Employment-based

H-1B approval after a previous RFE denial

Situation

A technology professional had their H-1B petition denied after the employer's previous attorney failed to adequately respond to a Request for Evidence (RFE) questioning the specialty occupation requirement. The employee was at risk of falling out of status.

Approach

We reviewed the original petition and RFE response, identified the weaknesses, and prepared a new H-1B petition with a substantially stronger argument for specialty occupation — including a detailed expert opinion letter, a revised job description aligned with DOL wage levels, and comprehensive evidence of the beneficiary's qualifications.

Outcome

The new petition was approved without an RFE. The employee maintained status and continued working without interruption.

Key takeaway: A prior denial doesn't prevent refiling. A stronger petition with better evidence and legal arguments can change the outcome.
Humanitarian

Asylum granted for a domestic violence survivor

Situation

A woman from South Asia fled to the United States after years of domestic violence. She had been in the U.S. for several months without legal status and was unsure whether she qualified for any form of protection.

Approach

After a thorough consultation, we determined she was eligible for both asylum and VAWA self-petition protections. We prepared a detailed asylum application with a comprehensive personal declaration, country condition evidence, psychological evaluation, and supporting affidavits. We also helped her obtain community resources and safety planning support.

Outcome

Asylum was granted at the interview stage. The client received employment authorization and is now on a path to permanent residency.

Key takeaway: Survivors of domestic violence may have multiple legal options — even without current immigration status. Early consultation is critical because asylum has a one-year filing deadline.
Naturalization

Naturalization approval despite a complicated travel history

Situation

A long-time green card holder wanted to apply for U.S. citizenship but had taken several extended trips abroad over the past five years, including one trip lasting over seven months. They were concerned that their travel history could disrupt the continuous residence requirement and result in a denial.

Approach

We analyzed each trip against the continuous residence and physical presence requirements, calculated the exact days, and determined that the seven-month trip had not technically broken continuity but was close to the threshold. We prepared a detailed cover letter with a timeline, supporting evidence of maintained U.S. ties (lease, tax returns, employment records), and prepared the client thoroughly for the interview.

Outcome

The N-400 was approved at the interview. The client took the oath of citizenship the same day.

Key takeaway: Extended travel doesn't automatically disqualify you from naturalizing, but it requires careful documentation of your ties to the U.S.
Employment-based

EB-2 National Interest Waiver for a research scientist

Situation

A postdoctoral researcher at a university in the western United States wanted to obtain permanent residency without relying on employer sponsorship. Her field was applied engineering with a focus on workplace safety analytics. She had published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national conferences, but she was unsure whether her profile was strong enough for a National Interest Waiver — especially since she was early in her career and did not yet have extensive citations.

Approach

We conducted a detailed evaluation of her qualifications against the three-prong test established in Matter of Dhanasar. Her work had clear practical applications with national implications, and we built the petition narrative around the real-world impact of her research rather than relying solely on citation counts. A critical part of the case was assembling strong expert recommendation letters. We identified and coordinated with six independent recommenders — researchers and industry professionals who could speak to the significance of her contributions from different angles. Each letter was carefully tailored to address specific Dhanasar prongs rather than offering generic praise. We filed the I-140 concurrently with I-485 adjustment of status applications for her and her spouse as a dependent, including advance parole and employment authorization requests.

Outcome

The I-140 was approved without a Request for Evidence. Both adjustment of status applications are proceeding, and the couple received their EAD cards and advance parole documents within four months of filing.

Key takeaway: An EB-2 NIW does not require extraordinary citation numbers. A well-structured petition that clearly connects the applicant's specific work to a demonstrated national interest — supported by targeted, independent recommendation letters — can succeed even for early-career researchers.
Family-based

Adjustment of status with complex foreign documentation

Situation

A married couple — she a U.S. citizen, he a national of a South Asian country — wanted to file for his green card through adjustment of status. The case was straightforward on paper, but the documentation challenges were significant. His birth certificate existed only in a regional language with no standardized English translation. His academic transcripts were from multiple institutions in two countries. Several key civil documents used his name spelled differently due to transliteration variations, and his passport reflected yet another spelling.

Approach

We began by mapping every document to identify all name variations and determining which required certified translations versus which had acceptable English versions. We coordinated certified translations through a professional service for the birth certificate, marriage certificate, and academic records. For the name discrepancy issue, we prepared a detailed cover letter with a name variation chart showing each spelling across every document, explaining the transliteration differences. We also obtained an affidavit from a family member confirming all variations referred to the same individual. We assembled the I-485 package with a comprehensive index and tabbed exhibits, cross-referenced to prevent any confusion during adjudication. Medical exams, passport photos, and financial sponsorship documents were coordinated in parallel to avoid bottlenecks.

Outcome

The case was approved after the interview without any Requests for Evidence. The officer specifically noted during the interview that the petition was well-organized and the name discrepancy explanation was clear.

Key takeaway: Foreign documentation issues — translations, name variations, and records from multiple countries — do not have to derail a family-based case. Proactive organization, clear explanations, and professional translations can prevent RFEs and make the adjudicator's job easier, which ultimately benefits the applicant.
Employment-based

H-1B cap registration and change of status from visitor visa

Situation

A technology company wanted to hire a software engineer who was in the United States on a B-2 visitor visa. The individual had a master's degree from a U.S. university and had previously worked on OPT, but his status had lapsed after a gap in employment. The employer needed to sponsor him through the H-1B lottery and, if selected, change his status without requiring him to leave the country.

Approach

We first assessed the B-2 status validity and confirmed the individual was maintaining lawful status with a timely filed extension. We then prepared the H-1B registration for the annual cap lottery, ensuring the beneficiary was registered in the advanced degree exemption pool to maximize selection chances. After lottery selection, we prepared the full H-1B petition (Form I-129) with detailed supporting documentation: a specialty occupation analysis tied to the specific job duties and the beneficiary's degree field, prevailing wage determination from the DOL, a Labor Condition Application, and employer support letters. Because the beneficiary was in B-2 status, we included a change of status request with the petition rather than requesting consular processing. This required careful attention to maintaining valid B-2 status throughout the adjudication period and documenting the intent to depart the U.S. if the petition was not approved.

Outcome

The H-1B was selected in the lottery, and the petition with change of status was approved with an October 1 start date. The employee began work without needing to travel abroad for visa stamping.

Key takeaway: H-1B sponsorship from B-2 visitor status is possible but requires careful planning around lottery timing, status maintenance, and the change of status request. Employers should begin preparation well before the March registration window to avoid missing the tight filing deadlines.

Case details have been modified to protect client confidentiality. These summaries are for illustrative purposes only and do not guarantee similar results. Outcomes depend on individual facts, applicable law, and government discretion.

Every case is unique.

These examples are representative — your situation may involve different facts, timelines, and legal options. The best way to understand your path is to schedule a consultation.

Schedule a consultation (781) 488-0315