Practice areas
Quick Contact
Cases we have handled, written up with the facts that mattered.
Our client, a senior software architect at a major Silicon Valley company, had limited academic publications — a common concern for industry professionals applying under EB-1A. Their initial self-filed petition received an RFE questioning 4 of the 6 claimed extraordinary ability criteria. With the response deadline approaching, the client came to us for help.
A biotech researcher at a leading Bay Area research institution needed a green card urgently as their H-1B status was nearing the 6-year limit. Their research focused on novel cancer immunotherapy approaches, but they needed to demonstrate that their specific work was in the national interest — not just cancer research in general.
An investor from Shanghai wanted to relocate their family of four to the United States through the EB-5 program. The complexity involved coordinating simultaneous I-526E petition filing and consular processing for all family members, while navigating strict source-of-funds documentation requirements for investment capital derived from multiple sources including real estate sales and business income in China.
A machine learning engineer at a top-tier tech company wanted to apply for EB-1A but was concerned about their non-traditional academic profile. While they had significant industry achievements — including key patents, conference presentations, and contributions to widely-used AI frameworks — they lacked the traditional publication record that many EB-1A applicants rely on.
A product manager at a technology company had their H-1B petition denied by another law firm. The denial was based on USCIS's determination that the position did not qualify as a specialty occupation. With their OPT expiring soon, the client needed to act quickly to maintain their legal status in the United States.
A researcher had their EB-1A petition challenged with an extensive RFE that questioned 4 of the 6 criteria they had claimed. The original petition, filed by another attorney, had weak documentation and generic arguments. USCIS specifically questioned the significance of the client's published articles, the nature of their judging experience, and whether their contributions were truly of 'major significance' to the field.
