Welcome
Our Team
Services
Overview
Immigration
Visa
Business
Personal & Family
FAQ
Success Stories
Contact Us

Tsang & Associates

Welcome
Our Team
Services
Overview
Immigration
Visa
Business
Personal & Family
FAQ
Success Stories
Contact Us
June 1, 2017
Law Clerk

A man with unlawful presence, a complex history, and various miscommunication between documentation successfully reopens his I-485 petition.

       Successful I-290B (Motion to Reopen) Case    Applicant: Mr. Kang  Nationality: Taiwan  Applying for: Motion to Reopen and Reconsider [I-290B]  Case Type: I-485  Time: 3 months  Challenges: Previous denial of I-485 due to insufficient evidence showing that Mr. Kang was not at fault for unlawful presence   Desperate, Mr. Kang came to Tsang and Associates seeking assistance after recently being denied his I-485 adjustment to permanent resident status, in hopes that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services would reopen his I-485 petition. If his petition did not get reopened, he would have to leave the United States at the expiration of his current visa or go through the entire filing process again hoping for a more favorable outcome. Mr. Kang had been denied on the basis that he did not provide sufficient evidence that explained that he was not at fault for not having been issued any I-20 Certificates of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student Status during the years 1997-2001, his high school years, prior to being reinstated to his F-1 Academic Student status while at the University of California, Los Angeles. After trying to apply for his I-485 readjustment of status and being denied, Mr. Kang franticly tried to find an attorney to help him take the next step in his case. When he found us at Tsang and Associates, we helped him create a Form I-290B Motion to Reopen and Motion to Reconsider. He received his denial on February 24, 2016 and we submitted the Motion to Reopen and Motion to Reconsider on March 21, 2016; approval for the Motion was given on June 21, 2016.   Keys to Success   Even though Mr. Kang was initially rejected from his readjustment of status, we believed strongly in his case and were confident that Mr. Kang’s petition for readjustment of status would be reopened after review. We had to file the motion to reopen by March 25, 2016- 30 days after the initial denial notice. We first had to tackle the issue of Mr. Kang’s unlawful presence during the years 1997-2001. We showed that per USCIS policy, there are exceptions to failing to maintain lawful immigration status. These include the applicant being restored to status and also if the failure to maintain status was not the fault of the applicant. Mr. Kang’s situation met both of these exceptions, opening up the door for reconsideration.  In our motion to reopen, we stressed that Mr. Kang had already been reinstated under F-1 student status in 2003, and therefore should have been allowed to adjust status under USCIS regulations. We highlighted that because Mr. Kang was indeed allowed reinstatement back in 2003, he had already met the requirements of USCIS to have his student status and Form I-20 reinstated.  In addition, we had to properly address the reasons for denial given by USCIS, being the lack of evidence showing that the failure to maintain status was not the fault of Mr. Kang. We first submitted an affidavit from the father of Mr. Kang, in which he himself admitted that he was to blame along with the Mr. Kang’s sister who was the de facto guardian, for not ensuring that Mr. Kang went through the proper procedural steps to receive I-20 status.  Furthermore, we asked the school district at which Mr. Kang attended to write a letter detailing the circumstances of Mr. Kang’s enrollment at the school. The letter stated that “there were no inquires made or conversations initiated with him regarding his immigration status” and therefore no I-20 was issued to authorize his attendance as an F-1 foreign student. We thus demonstrated that the father, sister, and school district were the ones to blame in not providing Mr. Kang, a minor at that time and thus understandably not aware of the situation, with the proper procedures for foreign student status. In fact, we established that no action was taken during Mr. Kang’s high school years; only when Mr. Kang was informed of his unlawful status at UCLA, was he made aware of the circumstances surrounding his immigrant status. We emphasized that once Mr. Kang was indeed made aware of his unlawful status, he immediately had the situation rectified through UCLA’s International Student Center.  We proved that Mr. Kang’s case should be reopened and reconsidered, that his unlawful presence should be excused, and that Mr. Kang should indeed be allowed to readjust his status.   Outcome   We received approval of the petition to reopen Mr. Kang’s case in 3 months on June 21, 2016.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.
May 15, 2017
Law Clerk

A CEO with only 2 employees in the U.S. office successfully proves managerial / executive capacity for a Request for Evidence.  

       Successful L-1A RFE Case    Nationality: Chinese  Adjudicated By: US Consulate  Industry: Rubber (Material Goods)  Company: Startup  Position: CEO  Case: L-1A Extension  Challenge: Only 2 Employees in U.S. Office   Strong legal advice and an impeccable command of the law can be the difference between L-1A approval and denial.  With prior L-1A denial, complicating the matter is that there are times when USCIS officers have a very poor command of their own rules and regulations.  Mr. Wong was transferred to the U.S. from their China based parent company to establish the U.S. subsidiary. However, the company only had 2 employees and 3 contractors with very limited office space. When the case was adjudicated by the immigration officer, he requested further evidence regarding the employment structure of the corporation showing that Mr. Wong was performing as a manager and executive in such a small operation ant not involved in the day-to-day operations of the business..  More specifically, the immigration officer stated that the applicant could not be both a manager and an executive and asked the applicants to only apply for one position.   Immigration Officer also requested additional evidence regarding the employment structure of the corporation to prove that the applicant was performing as either a manager or executive and not involved in the day-to-day operations of the business.   Keys To Success   As Mr. Wang was in fact involved in both a managerial and executive position and held some day to day responsibilities, it seemed that the case was doomed.  However, Tsang & Associates was able to successfully prove to the immigration officer that a L-1A transferee could be both an executive and manager and perform both duties by citing previously affirmed case law and successful appeal cases.  Holding managerial and executive duties are not mutually exclusive.   We showed with convincing evidence that the applicant was both an executive in establishing the business and a manager in helping maintain the business operation.   Second, to prove that that our client was performing at a managerial level we prepared a detailed explanation regarding the management structure of the company, explained how each personnel in the company contributed to its success, provided easy to understand flowcharts and power point presentations that explained how the company worked, and a detailed and well-designed business plan that justifies the small operation of the business. It was the company’s burden to show that the applicant was not involved in day to day operations and how the employees of the company did the majority of the work. To do this our attorneys interviewed each of the employees, contractors, and managers to have a full understanding of how their business operated on a day to day bases in order to present to the immigration officer a clear picture of how the company operated.  “When the RFE came in, I thought my case was done for.  Thankfully, Joseph and Chen- Cho were able to find why USCIS was in the wrong and helped me win my case”- Mr. Wong   Outcome   Our client’s L-1A application was accepted and approved within two weeks of the request for evidence.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.
August 1, 2016
Joseph Tsang

Owner and CEO of a Marketing Firm specializing in Taiwan based imports is granted an E-2 Treaty Investor visa even though she had no experience running a business and had frequently visited the United States in prior years.

       SUCCESSFUL E-2 VISA CASE    Nationality: Taiwanese  Industry: Marketing Firm  Position: CEO, Owner  Year Incorporated: 2016  Number of Employees: 3, including Ms. Chen  Number of Dependents: 1 child, U.S. citizen  Investment Amount: $250,000  Challenges:  Applicant/CEO has prior CBP record showing frequent visits to the United States  Applicant/CEO’s child is a U.S. citizen showing immigrant intent  Applicant had no experience running a business     Ms. Chen* came to Tsang and Associates seeking assistance in forming her E-2 Treaty Investor visa application. She had a child in the U.S. and was looking to stay for an extended amount of time. Previously, Ms. Chen would visit and stay on Taiwanese visa waivers, but was warned by a CBP officer at the airport that her frequency of visitation would be a cause for concern. She came to us to help her incorporate her business and help with the initial startup for her E-2 qualifying business. Her business specialized in marketing Taiwan based imports, focusing on marketing consultation for Taiwanese companies looking to sell in the United States by providing them the resources and the connections to sell internationally that they would otherwise be lacking. This was Ms. Chen’s first business venture, as many of her previous jobs involved consulting companies on marketing strategies and teaching as a professor. After much revision and hard work, Ms. Chen formally became the owner of her very own marketing firm. Once she began business, she sought our help in filing an E-2 Treaty Investor visa application. We filed her petition on July 19, 2016 and received approval on the same day.   Keys to Success   In order for one to be successful in their E-2 visa application, there are several requirements that are necessary according to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations:   The treaty investor must possess the nationality of the treaty country  The corporation must be a bona fide U.S. Corporation, a real operating enterprise and  not a fictitious paper organization  Capital invested must be substantial and irrevocably committed to the enterprise  The investment cannot be marginal  Investor must have ability to develop and direct the enterprise  Investor must have intent to depart following the end of E-2 status    Nationality of Treaty Country   When Ms. Chen first came to us, we strongly felt that we could get her E-2 visa approved. First off, Ms. Chen was a Taiwanese national, automatically qualifying her as a treaty investor. Expounding upon this, we showed with the Articles of Incorporation and Share Certificates that Ms. Chen was indeed 100% owner of the company and thus the company completely met the foreign ownership requirement.   Proof of Real and Operating Enterprise   In addition, we had to show that the company was a bona fide U.S. Corporation. This was challenging at first because the company had only recently been incorporated in the United States. We began this process when she first retained us. We helped Ms. Chen formally incorporate her business and helped her obtain the appropriate business licenses and sellers permits. We also helped her establish purchase agreements and contracts with Taiwanese companies looking to expand into the U.S., and we even created a CPA-certified business plan for her company, detailing her company’s projected growth and marketing strategies. We helped her list job openings for her company online, which resulted in the hire of two part-time employees, both of with whom she has become very close. We also helped her create an e-commerce website on which she had already sold numerous products, even before her visa was approved. Using all of this, we fully proved Ms. Chen’s company as “a real operating enterprise and not a fictitious paper organization”.   Substantial, Irrevocably Committed Investment   We also proved that Ms. Chen’s investment was substantial and irrevocable due to USCIS fears that the investment is simply just a “risky undertaking”. We first established Ms. Chen’s total investment by referring to her financial statements. To help fund her company, Ms. Chen sold her house in Taiwan. In combination with her savings, she made an initial investment of $150,000 and eventually added another $100,000. By the proportionality test of federal regulation, because Ms. Chen owned 100% of the company, her investment of $250,000 was indeed substantial. In order to further the irrevocability of the investment, we noted that Ms. Chen had already incurred numerous expenses such as investing in equipment, design, accounting, and legal costs. She had also already signed purchase agreements and bought thousands of dollars’ worth of merchandise to begin her enterprise. In addition, she had already signed a 1 year lease for the operating location of the business and hired 2 employees, thus demonstrating her full commitment to the endeavor.   More than Marginal Investment   A business submitted with an E-2 application must prove to return more than marginal revenue. Ms. Chen’s business is based in the San Francisco area, which posed a problem in terms of profit. In such a big city, the cost of living is relatively high compared with the rest of the state. In addition, Ms. Chen’s company must have high enough sales to compensate for the cost of operating, payroll, and eventual expansion. We helped Ms. Chen modify her business plan to expand her company’s offerings and earn a profit in the first year of operation. We helped her create multiple streams of revenue by increasing her company’s brand offerings and adding a marketing consulting service as requested service. Now, Ms. Chen’s company not only serves as a channel for Taiwanese companies to branch into the U.S., but it also sells American sporting goods to companies in Taiwan and offers marketing counseling. We proved Ms. Chen’s company is more than marginal by presenting her purchase agreements with Taiwanese companies, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in product.   Ability to Develop and Direct the Business Enterprise   A key part of the E-2 Visa is that the applicant possesses the ability to direct and develop their business. Although she had no business experience to begin with, we proved that Ms. Chen was more than qualified to start and manage a business by providing copies of over sixty certifications and awards that she had earned throughout her marketing career. Included among these were her Ph.D. in Marketing and her Master of Arts degree in Economics. With such high achievements, we showed that Ms. Chen was fit to direct the operations of her business. Even though she did not have business experience, Ms. Chen displays a solid background in her business’s industry. With vast experience, we proved that Ms. Chen was, if possible, overqualified to run her marketing company.   Intent to Depart   An equally important part of the E-2 visa is that the applicant plans to return to their home country. There were many obstacles to overcome in proving Ms. Chen’s intent to return. She had sold her house in Taiwan to create investment capital, currently had U.S. citizen child, and had previously visited the United States with a high frequency. However, we were able to prove her intent to return by sharing a portion of Ms. Chen’s long-term business plan— she plans to help Taiwanese companies market their products to Taiwanese consumers. To do this, she would return to Taiwan to work closely with companies and their target markets.   Interview Preparation   Beyond the paperwork, we also helped Ms. Chen prepare for her E-2 Application interview. Ms. Chen began the E-2 Application process a bit timidly, as she had never attempted such an enterprise before. She feared her business plan would not be strong enough to impress the Taiwanese immigration officers. We helped her prepare for any and all questions that might be asked of her and her company, requiring her to answer as detailed as possible. She worked through over ten hours of practice interviews, answering a seemingly endless line of questioning. On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Ms. Chen went for her interview. After her hours of preparation, she looked and felt substantially more confident than she had when she first began. After the interview had been completed, Ms. Chen was extremely grateful that we had prepared her for the exact questions that the officer asked, allowing her to pass smoothly.   Outcome   On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Ms. Chen’s E-2 Visa was approved.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.
July 29, 2016
Joseph Tsang

Machine Tools Production and Distribution company Marketing Director applies and is approved for EB-1C classification. We were able to demonstrate that his primary duties were managerial or executive in nature, overcoming two previous denials from filings with two different attorneys.

       SUCCESSFUL EB-1C CLASSIFICATION CASE    Petitioner: U.S. Machine Company  Beneficiary: Mr. Pang  Applying for: EB-1C classification  Business: Machine Tool Production and Distribution  Nationality: Taiwanese (Republic of China)  Position: Marketing Director  Year Incorporated: 2000  Revenue: $28,900,309  Number of Employees: 24  Challenges:  Mr. Pang performed several duties that were supervisory and not executive or managerial in nature  Affiliation was difficult due to indirect control by the Taiwan company  Two previous denials from two different attorneys     U.S. Machine Company came to Tsang and Associates hoping to file a petition for EB-1C classification as a Priority Worker- Multinational Manager on behalf of Mr. Pang*, who would serve as the Marketing Director of U.S. Company after serving in a similar capacity in Taiwan and for several years with L-1A status. Mr. Pang’s EB-1C classification had previously been denied twice after filings by two different attorneys. In 2010, the company filed for EB-1C classification with an attorney located in Rowland Heights, California; Mr. Pang was denied classification. A couple years later, the company again tried to file for EB-1C classification for Mr. Pang with a different attorney located in Diamond Bar, California; a denial was again received. Both denials were on the basis that Mr. Pang would not be primarily performing managerial or executive duties. Distressed, U.S. Company and Mr. Pang came to Tsang and Associates in order to finally gain approval of Mr. Pang’s EB-1C classification after two previous failures. We submitted the petition on June 24, 2013 and received approval on November 19, 2014.   Keys to Success   Initially, when Mr. Pang and U.S. Machine Company first came to us, we knew that this case would be difficult based on two previous denials of EB-1C classification for Mr. Pang, one from 2010 and the other 2013. However we strongly believed in our client’s case, that we would be able to overcome the reasons given for denial the past two times while not contradicting the previous two submissions. According to USCIS regulation, in order to qualify for EB-1C classification, one must prove a control relationship between the U.S. company and foreign company, and also that the beneficiary would be performing duties in a managerial or executive capacity.   How we proved the control relationship between U.S. Company and Taiwan Company   We first had to prove that according to USCIS requirements, that the U.S. Company “is the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by which the alien was employed overseas.” However, there was a challenge due to the fact that the U.S. Company stock was owned by two companies that had different names than the Taiwan company. We demonstrated through stock certificates and stock ledgers that these two companies completely owned the U.S. Company but also proved that these two companies were both included under the main Taiwan Company of which the U.S. Company was a subsidiary. Thus we established that the U.S. Company was therefore completely owned by the overarching Taiwan Company, fulfilling the control relationship requirement.   How we proved that Mr. Pang’s proposed duties in U.S. Company were managerial or executive   This was the more difficult part of this case, as this requirement was the reason that the previous two submissions were denied. As defined by USCIS, managerial capacity consists of tasks including “managing the organization, or a department, subdivision, function or component of the organization” and primarily “supervising and controlling the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or managing an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization.” Mr. Pang’s duties included several that were supervisory in nature and not qualified as managerial or executive, such as updating customer information, maintaining good customer relations, and making visits to customers. A previous denial cited that “from the descriptions of the job duties, it appears that many of the tasks which the beneficiary performs are not of a managerial or executive nature, but would ordinarily be performed by a general marketer, sales staff or other employees or contractors”. In order to combat this, we focused on Mr. Pang’s role as manager of the marketing department. We obtained expert opinion letters and employment verification letters demonstrating that Mr. Pang had the responsibility of managing and overseeing all of the marketing operations of the company and therefore formulating marketing strategies that would guide the company by directing activities and development; this proved that Mr. Pang effectively managed a major component of the company. In addition, we showed that in his position as Marketing Director, Mr. Pang essentially determined the direction and success of the organization. We also proved that as Mr. Pang was controlling the work of a Marketing Manager as well as a Sales Manager, Mr. Pang would be employed in a supervisory position over other supervisory and professional employees. Furthermore, we highlighted that Mr. Pang had control of personnel, including the right to hire and fire staff, along with supervising their daily activities.  Executive capacity is defined by federal regulations as “directs management of the organization or a major component of function of the organization”, “establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component or function”, “exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making”, and “receives supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization”. We indicated that in Mr. Pang’s role, he would be making all of the strategies of the marketing plan, making the decisions in this department, and establishing as well as communicating the goals and vision of the company to his subordinates. We showed that as a Marketing Director, Mr. Pang had the authority to exercise discretion over marketing operations, activities, and functions of the company. He was instrumental in managing the company’s complex marketing initiatives.   Outcome   The petition for EB-1C classification was filed on June 24, 2013 and we received the approval on November 19, 2014. Our client was relieved that finally, on the third try, the petition was approved.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.
July 26, 2016
Joseph Tsang

Mexican national with a U.S. citizen wife and child applies and is approved for an Unlawful Presence Waiver. We proved that denial of a waiver would lead to health problems for the wife, devastate familial ties, and hinder the growth of their child, constituting extreme hardship.

       SUCCESSFUL UNLAWFUL PRESENCE WAIVER CASE    Client: Mr. Garcia  Applying for: I-601A Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver  Nationality: Mexican  Length of Marriage: 10 years  Number of Children: 1  Challenges:  Mr. Garcia previously filed at another office and was denied.  Mr. Garcia was earning a meager income.     Mr. Garcia* came to Tsang and Associates desperately needing assistance in obtaining an I-601A Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver. Mr. Garcia first came into the United States unlawfully when he was 23 years old from Mexico and now strongly desired to become a lawful U.S. resident. Without it, Mr. Garcia would suffer tremendous losses of opportunity in the United States and would lose eligibility to come to the United States for 10 years while potentially leaving behind a U.S. citizen wife and son. Distressed, Mr. Garcia sought our help in his waiver application that was previously denied. After sitting down with him and his family during a strategy session, we were able to compile evidence and submit the application on June 16, 2015. It was approved on August 24, 2015.   Keys to Success   When Mr. Garcia first came to us and explained his situation, we were confident that we could prove that should Mr. Garcia be denied a waiver and face deportation, detrimental consequences would occur. According to USCIS regulation, the waiver would only be approved if we were able to show that extreme hardship would occur subsequent to the denial. Although extreme hardship is not explicitly defined by USCIS, some factors of interest include the presence of a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen spouse or parent in this country, the qualifying relative’s family ties outside the U.S., the conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extend of the qualifying relative’s ties in such countries, the financial impact of departure from this country, and significant conditions of health.  In establishing extreme hardship in the event of deportation, we first highlighted that Mr. Garcia had a wife and son. We showed through documents such as a marriage certificate, work verification, various photos, and the son’s report cards and awards, that the family indeed had an established life here in the United States. Mrs. Garcia had been working for 17 years and their son was doing well in school.  We stressed that should Mr. Garcia be forced to leave the United States, his family would have two options: either go with Mr. Garcia to Mexico or remain in the United States. In looking at the first option, we researched and proved that Mexico would be dangerous for both Mr. Garcia and his family due to the high crime rates and political corruption. We also showed that Mexico’s crumbling education system would be inadequate for their son who had special educational needs and speaks little Spanish. In addition, we provided hospital records and doctor’s letters indicating the severity of Mrs. Garcia’s anxiety disorder, ovarian cyst condition, and high cholesterol, all of which would be further exacerbated with a move to Mexico. We highlighted that Mexico’s limited healthcare system would be detrimental for Mrs. Garcia. Moreover, we explained that both of Mrs. Garcia’s parents had significantly demanding medical conditions that require daily attention and are accompanied with expensive medical bills. We noted that presently, Mr. Garcia and his family were heavily involved in providing for them; should they be unable to do so, there would be a significantly heavy financial burden and emotional pain for the family. The family would also be separated from all the friends they had made in the United States up to this point.  Furthermore, we proved that should Mrs. Garcia and her son remain in the United States in the event of Mr. Garcia’s departure, Mrs. Garcia would indeed suffer greatly with emotional struggles and physical ailments. Being away from her husband would most certainly entail greater severity of anxiety and difficulties. We also stressed that she would lack the support from her husband which would bring financial difficulties as well. We proved through bank statements and personal statements from friends and family the importance of Mr. Garcia’s financial contributions to both his immediate family as well as his extended family, most notably Mrs. Garcia’s parents who required great medical attention. In addition, we researched the risks of Mrs. Garcia’s ovarian cysts and the disastrous effects of their potential rupture or enlargement, all of which would be made much worse without Mr. Garcia’s presence in the United States.  Thus we established that every consequence of Mr. Garcia’s potential departure from the United States would bring about significant and extreme hardship to both his immediate family and extended family as well. We proved that it would result in devastating health problems for his wife and in-laws in addition to bringing about emotional pains and financial sufferings for his family. Ultimately, we proved that the social, financial, and familial ties for Mr. Garcia were simply too strong to break apart; if they were broken, extreme hardship for the family members would be sure to occur.   Outcome   We filed the petition on June 16, 2015 and was approved on August 24, 2015 without any request for evidence. Our client was extremely grateful as he could continue living a blessed and joyful life with his family.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.
Law Clerk
November 11, 2017

Law Clerk
November 11, 2017
       SUCCESSFUL E-2 Case     Applicant: Mr. Chen*    Nationality: Taiwan (Republic of China)    Industry: Property Management    Position: President and Owner/ Principal Investor    Year Incorporated: 2009    Number of Employees: 2 including Mr. Chen    Number of Dependents: 1    Investment Amount: More than $600,000 in real estate    Challenges:    There were only 2 employees including Mr. Chen (small real estate management property)    The investment was used to buy real property    Property management income was low    The other 40% of the company was owned by a family member      Mr. Chen came to Tsang and Associates in hopes that we could assist him in developing his E-2 Treaty Investor Visa application. As the President and Owner of the company, he hoped to incorporate his extensive knowledge of the property management and real estate sector in Southern California to implement the company’s business plan and long-term goals. Without this opportunity, his company would fail to capitalize on the growing property management industry and be hindered in their attempt to carve out a dominant presence in the Southern California property management industry. However, he did not have much experience in business and did not have many liquid funds despite his family’s wealth. It was difficult to show that he owned a real company since it was small and Mr. Chen only wanted to buy property. He wasn’t sure how he would be able to be approved for his E-2 visa in these circumstances and did not have much hope.  Desperately needing help, Tsang and Associates helped him file his application on June 4, 2014 and received E-2 approval one day later.   Keys to Success   In order for one to be successful in their E-2 visa application, there are several requirements that are necessary according to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations:    The treaty investor must possess the nationality of the treaty country    The corporation must be a bona fide U.S. Corporation, a real operating enterprise and not a fictitious paper organization    Capital invested must be substantial and irrevocably committed to the enterprise    The investment cannot be marginal    Investor must have ability to develop and direct the enterprise    Investor must have intent to depart following the end of E-2 status     National of Treaty Country   When Mr. Chen first retained us at Tsang and Associates, we strongly believed that he qualified. First we noted that he, as a Taiwanese national, indeed fulfilled the nationality requirement. In addition, we showed through the Articles of Incorporation and stock transaction documents, that Mr. Chen was the owner of 60% of the company and thus with the combined ownership meets the requirement of foreign ownership.   Real and Operating Enterprise   Initially we believed that it would be difficult to prove that Mr. Chen’s business was a real and active commercial enterprise due to the fact there was only one other employee. In order to satisfy this requirement, we referenced various bank statements, purchase and sales invoices as well as contracts with active customers in order to demonstrate that the business was real and active, despite its low employee count on the surface.   Substantial and Irrevocable Investment   In addition, we were required to prove that the investment made by Mr. Chen was substantial and irrevocable due to USCIS fears that the investment is simply just a “risky undertaking”. In order to do so, we showed that Mr. Chen had made a combined and substantial capital investment of more than $600,000 into the company since its incorporation in 2009. Using his financial statements, we demonstrated that these funds came out of Mr. Chen’s own personal funds and profit gained from the company’s success was also reinvested into the company over the years; this indicated Mr. Chen’s commitment to the undertaking. Even though the money was used to buy real property, we demonstrated that the continual recycling of investment proved the substantial and irrevocable nature of the investment. We utilized the proportionality test used by USCIS to determine that the amount invested is an amount normally considered “necessary” to establish an enterprise despite the property purchase.   More than Marginal Investment   In addition to proving that the investment made was substantial, we were required to prove that the investment was more than marginal. According to federal regulations, an investment is considered to be more than marginal in the cases that it either provides income that exceeds what is necessary to support the individual and the family or that it would make a significant economic contribution in the future. We fulfilled this in two ways by helping Mr. Chen to develop a sound business plan for his company. We first demonstrated that Mr. Chen assured a good return on investment by hiring a Certified Public Accountant to perform a careful analysis of the business prospects. We proved with the company’s bank statements that as revenue and profits are constantly being recycled into the Company, solid financial position has been achieved. Even though the company revenue was low, we stressed that it had the necessary financial resources for all of its expenses and was in position to experience substantial future growth. More importantly, as we helped Mr. Chen develop a business plan, we proved that significant economic contributions would be made in creating an additional five jobs by 2018 as the business continues to grow alongside the growing industry.   Ability to Develop and Direct the Business Enterprise   Another key point we had to show was that Mr. Chen was coming to the U.S. to develop and direct the enterprise, meaning that he would have to have a controlling interest in the company. According to USCIS regulation, ordinary skilled and unskilled workers do not qualify. We first demonstrated that Mr. Chen was indeed qualified based on his credentials and past experiences. We highlighted Mr. Chen’s ability to speak English, Chinese, and Taiwanese in building up customer relations and we stressed that much of Mr. Chen’s professional life had been devoted to the property management and investment sectors, further proving the need for someone of Mr. Chen’s caliber. Through the business plan we developed detailing Mr. Chen’s duties, we showed that Mr. Chen’s duties would entail identifying additional sources of income and revenue, expanding its scope of operations in order to maximize return on investments, and increase productivity. We showed that Mr. Chen was the linchpin of his company, a vital component to the growth of his company in the United States.   Intent to Depart   Lastly, we needed to prove that Mr. Chen did not have any intention to overstay his visa. We demonstrated that he and his family had significant social and financial ties to Taiwan including a large number of shares in a Taiwanese company. We proved with financial statements that Mr. Chen maintains ample cash and assets at various financial institutions; we also used his registration of real estate and property to show his connections there as well.   Interview Preparation                   Following the submission of our petition, there was one final step. We needed to prepare Mr. Chen for his upcoming interview with the immigration officer. Initially, he was very distressed, fearful that the interview wouldn’t go well. Mr. Chen was worried because his investment was used to buy real property and also because the property management company income was very low. Nevertheless, we helped him to build confidence by presenting him with questions that we anticipated, through our years of experience, the immigration officer would ask. We were able to meet with him to do numerous hours of interview practice and detailing answers. Afterwards, he was very comfortable with the upcoming interview. When the interview was over, Mr. Chen was very grateful that he felt extremely well prepared and that he was able to pass without any difficulties.   Outcome   The petition was approved after one day.  The entire family came to the U.S. to start work and were excited to continue real estate investment.

A small 2-person real estate company applies for an E-2 treaty investor visa.

Tagged: E-2, O-Visa

Law Clerk
September 1, 2017

Law Clerk
September 1, 2017
       Successful E-2 Case    Nationality: Taiwan  Business: Freight Transportation Services  Position: Chief Financial Officer  Year Incorporated: 2009  Number of Employees: 26 including Ms. Tang  Number of Dependents: 1  Investment Amount: More than $150,080.50  Challenges:  Ms. Tang only owned 50% of the company while the other 50% was owned by her brother  Revenue projections were low in the immediate future  Money invested was used to repay loans  Ms. Tang had no background in trucking or transportation logistics     Ms. Tang* came to Tsang and Associates in hopes that we would help her file an application as an E-2 Treaty Investor in order to obtain a visa to work as the Chief Financial Officer in the United States transportation company. Her brother had a company in the U.S. and wanted his sister to come and to apply her accounting financial knowledge and expertise.  Doing so would allow the company to actualize its long-term goals. If she could not come to the U.S., the company would experience stagnant growth, be unable to effectively minimize the costs, and fail to achieve its financial objectives. As such, Ms. Tang sought our assistance at Tsang and Associates to help her form a complete and thorough petition. We filed the petition on February 8, 2016 and received approval the same day.   Keys to Success   In order for one to be successful in their E-2 visa application, there are several requirements that are necessary according to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations:   The treaty investor must possess the nationality of the treaty country  The corporation must be a bona fide U.S. Corporation, a real operating enterprise and not a fictitious paper organization  Capital invested must be substantial and irrevocably committed to the enterprise  The investment cannot be marginal  Investor must have ability to develop and direct the enterprise  Investor must have intent to depart following the end of E-2 status    National of Treaty Country   When Ms. Tang retained us at Tsang and Associates, we were confident that her petition would be approved. First, as Taiwan was a treaty country, it was clear that Ms. Tang, a Taiwanese citizen, indeed fulfilled that requirement. In further expanding this, we noted through the share certificates, articles of incorporation, and operating agreement of the company, that Ms. Tang had a 50% ownership interest while the other 50% of the company was owned by her brother, another Taiwanese national. We established therefore that the company was completely under the ownership of Taiwanese nationals and thus meets the foreign ownership requirement.   Real and Operating Enterprise   An additional requirement we had to show was that the company was a real operating enterprise. By providing various documentary evidence such as company bank statements, photographs of the location, business license, along with various contracts with clients, we demonstrated that the company was indeed doing business. We also highlighted that since its incorporation in 2009, the company has experienced significant growth, even doubling its net income the past two years. We thus established that the company was not a “fictitious paper organization” nor an “idle passive speculative investment merely held for potential appreciation and value”.   Substantial and Irrevocable Investment   Further, we had to show that the investment made by Ms. Tang was substantial and irrevocable due to USCIS fears that the investment is simply just a “risky undertaking”. This was challenging because the money that Ms. Tang invested was used to repay loans rather than just for company advancement. In order to combat this, we broke down Ms. Tang’s investment which totaled $150,080.50. We showed through bank statements and the purchase agreement that Ms. Tang did indeed invest the sum and more through the purchase of administrative supplies, lease payments, and marketing expenses. We cited the USCIS proportionality test, indicating that Ms. Tang’s investment of greater than $150,000 while owning 50% interest in the company via a legally binding purchase agreement indeed qualified as a substantial investment. We thus proved that the business was not “speculative, but is, or soon will be a successful enterprise as the result of the exercise of sound business and financial judgment”.   More than Marginal Investment   In addition to proving that the investment made was substantial, we were required to prove that the investment was more than marginal. According to federal regulations, an investment is considered to be more than marginal in the cases that it either provides income that exceeds what is necessary to support the individual and the family or that it would make a significant economic contribution in the future. We fulfilled both of these considerations. First we showed using the Company Business Plan that revenues were projected to be extremely healthy within the next few years, demonstrating that the income provided would indeed be more than marginal. Adding on, we noted in the personnel plan section of the Business plan, that with Ms. Tang’s investment, there would be a newly created 7 full-time and contracted jobs for U.S. Citizens or permanent residents and even more in the future. This clearly indicated that significant economic contributions would be made with the creation of new jobs, ensuring that Ms. Tang’s investment would be considered more than marginal.   Ability to Develop and Direct the Business Enterprise   We further needed to prove to USCIS satisfaction that Ms. Tang was coming to the U.S. to develop and direct the enterprise, meaning that she would have to have a controlling interest in the company; she could not just be an ordinary skilled or unskilled worker. We felt that it was clear that Ms. Tang met these qualifications despite the fact that she did not have a background in trucking or in transportation logistics. We portrayed this by first detailing Ms. Tang’s extensive experiences and knowledge in finances, qualifying her to become the Chief Financial Officer of the company. We proved that her duties, which included managing the budgets, overseeing all financial aspects of the company, implementing effective cost saving methods, and finalizing major company decisions were indeed intertwined with developing and directing the company. We highlighted that Ms. Tang’s skill set was vital to the success of the company in the U.S. was thus reasonable to conclude that Ms. Tang would be developing and directing operations for the company under the USCIS definitions.   Intent to Depart   The last key we had to prove was that Ms. Tang did not have any intention to overstay his visa. In order to tackle this, we established that she had extensive social and financial ties abroad in Taiwan, through her marriage certificate, divorce certificate, and personal bank statements. We also noted that she had significant property interests abroad as well, as evidenced by property ownership documents in Taiwan.   Interview Preparation   Upon submitting and finishing the paperwork for the case, we then assisted Ms. Tang in her interview process. When first confronted with the prospects of the interview, Ms. Tang was extremely concerned. She wasn’t sure if she would be able to adequately answer the immigration officer’s questions. She feared that the fact that her revenue projections were low in the immediate future and because she had no background in trucking or transportation logistics would be cause for her denial. As such, we devoted many hours helping her to feel comfortable about the interview by undergoing practice interviews and formulating the best responses to certain anticipated questions. By the end of it, Ms. Tang was confident in her ability to answer the officer’s questions. She went through the interview and was extremely thankful that it ran smoothly and she passed.   Outcome   Our client’s E-2 visa was approved on the same day with no request for evidence.  *Name changed to protect client identity.

A woman with no industry experience in a company that had very few assets wishes to apply for an E-2 treaty investor visa.

Tagged: E-2, Visa

Law Clerk
August 15, 2017

Law Clerk
August 15, 2017
       Successful EB-5 Victim Fraud    Client: Mr. Ying*  Nationality: China  Position: Company President  Investment Amount: $500,000  Direct EB-5 Filing  Challenges  Mr. Ying was a victim of EB-5 investment fraud from trusted manager and agent who disappeared  Mr. Ying had to deal with the company’s debts, lawsuits, and denial of his green card.  Mr. Ying was summoned to court while he was in China and had a judgment entered against him for unpaid debts  Mr. Ying had no documents to give us to prove his innocence      Background   Mr. Ying was in the process of applying for an EB-5 immigrant investor green card when the agent he hired ran off with his investment of $500,000.  Unbeknownst to him, the group in which he invested was running a Ponzi scheme –  in which the group would pay old investors with money received from new investors.  The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint, and the Investment Group was found to be illegitimate, which meant that Mr. Ying’s green card was denied.  But his legal battles did not end there.  His company (of which he was President) was left empty, which resulted in large debts and multiple lawsuits.  An insurance company, other businesses to which he owned outstanding debts, and the city itself was suing him.  He was summoned to fly from China to America to appear in court.  The stress and complications of the fraud he was a victim of was extraordinary.  Distressed and frustrated, Mr. Ying reached out to us with little to no documents of the company he owned. We were able to effectively close all his lawsuits, negotiated down his liability, and helped Mr. Ying dissolve his company to allow him to travel to the United States, ending the EB-5 nightmare.   Keys To Success    Lack of Documentation   When Mr. Ying reached out to us, we understood his distress and shaky situation, especially since he did not have any documents to prove his innocence.  We came up with methods in which documents could be produced: requests to Mr. Ying’s previous attorney, court archives, and banks.  Though the process was difficult, costly in time and effort (especially with banks, as banks typically refuse to release bank statements unless there is a lawsuit), we were able to pull up enough documentation for his case.  His name was not signed on many of the documentation we found, but with a bit of creativity and very clear explanations, we were able to link his documentation and case together to the satisfaction of the debtor and the Secretary of State to dissolve company.   Lawsuits and Court Order   Another huge challenge was helping Mr. Ying with the lawsuits filed against his company.  The insurance company regarding worker’s compensation in particular had summoned him to fly from China to America to appear in court.  But Tsang & Associates was able to mitigate the liability and court order.   Dissolution   Tired and stressed, Mr. Ying wished to dissolve his company and be able to travel to the U.S. again.  However, the Secretary of State was unwilling to dissolve the company until all liens on the company was released.  We guided Mr. Ying through the procedure and was there for every step, from informing the State of California Tax Board to filing with the Secretary of State.   As such, his company was successfully dissolved without any complications.   Outcome   From being a victim of fraud, losing his green card, facing lawsuits, court orders, and debts with not a single document to prove his innocence, we were able to help Mr. Ying fix all his legal problems.   In total, his claims reduced from $150,000 to $20,000 and he no longer had a warrant.  Within 6 months, Mr. Ying was able dissolve his company, could travel freely, and was free of the nightmare of legal battles.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.

Victim of an EB-5 investment fraud, a man who lost $500,000, had no documents, and had a multitude of lawsuits and debt searches desperately to end his legal nightmare.

Tagged: EB-5, Fraud

Joseph Tsang
August 1, 2017

Joseph Tsang
August 1, 2017
       Successful I-601 Waiver    Client: Mr. Ramirez*  Applying for: I-601A Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver  Nationality: Mexico  Length of Marriage: 12 Years  Number of Children: 0  Challenges:  Mr. Ramirez was earning a modest income, part of which was being sent to his family in Mexico  No children  Mrs. Ramirez’s mother had previously passed away and her father had a job to provide for himself  Mrs. Ramirez suffered from a common medical condition     Extremely distressed, Mr. Ramirez came to us at Tsang and Associates hoping that we would be able to help him apply for an I-601A Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver. He had previously entered the United States without inspection in 1996 when he was 19 years old and had been living in the United States ever since. He had been happily married to Mrs. Ramirez for nearly 12 years but had always been ashamed and embarrassed of his immigration status. Now he strongly wished to resolve this massive regret of unlawfully entering and residing in the United States. If he was unable to obtain a waiver, he would suffer from numerous losses of opportunity in the United States and potentially be forced to leave his U.S. citizen wife of 12 years. Desperate, Mr. Ramirez sought our assistance in establishing the basis for his waiver. After sitting down with him and his family, we strongly believed that we would be able to help him have his waiver approved. We compiled the evidence and submitted the waiver petition on February 10, 2016. We received approval on August 10, 2016.   Keys to Success   When Mr. Ramirez first came to us, we were confident that we would be able to demonstrate that he was qualified for the unlawful presence waiver. According to USCIS regulations, the waiver would only be approved if we proved that Mr. Ramirez’s U.S. citizen wife would suffer from “extreme hardship” if the waiver is denied. Although extreme hardship is not explicitly defined by USCIS, some factors of interest include the presence of a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen spouse or parent in this country, the qualifying relative’s family ties outside the U.S., the conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extend of the qualifying relative’s ties in such countries, the financial impact of departure from this country, and significant conditions of health.  In order to tackle the grounds for extreme hardship, we first highlighted the life in the United States that Mr. Ramirez and his family had already established. One of the challenges we faced in detailing the family life was that Mr. Ramirez and his wife did not have any children. Commonly, the connections with children and the difficulties posed to them are used to supplement other forms of extreme hardship that the U.S. citizen would face. However, in this case we instead heavily emphasized the union of Mr. Ramirez and Mrs. Ramirez. We showed using a marriage certificate, family photos, and personal statements, that they had been madly in love ever since they first met in 2003. We emphasized that throughout their nearly 12-year marriage, they were constantly in a state of bliss, happy and satisfied. We showed further using work certificates, that they had firmly established careers leading them to have a stable and peaceful lifestyle that would only be ripped apart and crushed in the event of Mr. Ramirez’s potential deportation.  We noted that should Mr. Ramirez be forced to leave the United States, Mrs. Ramirez would have two options: either accompany Mr. Ramirez to Mexico or remain without him in the United States. We first broke down the first option of Mrs. Ramirez going to Mexico with her husband. After extensive research, we proved that Mr. Ramirez’s home in Mexico would be extremely dangerous for the both of them. With one of the highest murder rates in Mexico, a high poverty rate, and a bounty of political corruption, we proved that a move there would unquestionably account for “extreme hardship” to Mrs. Ramirez, constantly fearing for her life and living in a life of poverty. Moreover, we were able to establish emotional, physical, and financial hardships that Mrs. Ramirez would face in Mexico.  In proving the emotional toll, we focused on her family. We highlighted the fact that Mrs. Ramirez’s mother had passed away recently and if she was forced to leave the United States, she would suffer additional losses in leaving behind her aging father and teenage sister, an emotional toll that would be tough for anyone to bear. Even though her father was still working and her sister was 16 years old and nearly an adult, we proved using personal affidavits and school records that Mrs. Ramirez was in fact the main line of support for the both of them; she was even her sister’s legal primary caregiver. In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Ramirez were named the godparents of 8 children in the United States though they had none of their own. Furthermore, we focused on the financial impact if Mr. and Mrs. Ramirez were led to Mexico. We proved using bank statements and receipts combined with vast research, that not only would the couple likely be living in poverty, but the financial support for Mrs. Ramirez’s father and sister would essentially dissolve. We underlined that Mr. and Mrs. Ramirez no longer would be able to act as the financial cornerstone for their extended families. In addition, we noted the severity of Mrs. Ramirez’s medical condition, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Although this condition is rather common, found in 1 out of 10 women, we were able to speak to the magnitude of suffering that Mrs. Ramirez endured as a result. We emphasized that she had already suffered from many symptoms such as extreme pelvic pain, sleep apnea, and cysts on the ovaries among much more. We were able to obtain doctor’s verification and Mrs. Ramirez’s medical records indicating the tremendous suffering, including intense vaginal hemorrhaging, far beyond the norm. With this, we indicated that should Mrs. Ramirez travel to Mexico, her condition would be sure to worsen due to Mexico’s subpar medical facilities and her ensuing inability to obtain the proper medication due to financial difficulties.  Furthermore, we proved that Mrs. Ramirez would also suffer extreme hardship should she remain in the United States while Mr. Ramirez is deported. First of all, we highlighted the emotional toll she would suffer because of being separated from her husband of nearly 12 years. We stressed that the strain of being away from the love of her life without the capability of visiting him often due to financial concerns would be a tremendous cause for undeniable extreme hardship. Further compounding this, we proved that Mrs. Ramirez along with her sister and father would suffer hardships; using tax returns of both Mr. and Mrs. Ramirez along with various bank statements, we demonstrated the vital contributions that Mr. Ramirez gave financially in order to support the immediate and extended family despite the fact that his income was meager and that part of his salary also went to support his own family in Mexico. In piling on to these extreme hardships, we also noted that without Mr. Ramirez’s presence and financial contributions, Mrs. Ramirez would not be able to afford the proper treatment and medication needed for her Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; also, her symptoms such as anxiety and depression would undoubtedly worsen without Mr. Ramirez by her side.  Ultimately, we showed that regardless of whether or not Mrs. Ramirez accompanied Mr. Ramirez to Mexico, his deportation would cause extreme hardship to fall upon Mrs. Ramirez and her family. We proved that the emotional ties would be severed, the health of family members would decline tremendously, and the financial difficulties would be too great to overcome, constituting extreme hardship.   Outcome   We filed the petition on February 10, 2016 and received approval on August 10, 2016.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.

Married to his U.S. citizen wife of 12 years, a man with fights to keep his life in America and stay with his family.

Tagged: Waiver, I-601A

Joseph Tsang
July 15, 2017

Joseph Tsang
July 15, 2017
       Successful Trademark Renewal    Applicant: Computer Hardware Company  Business: Automation Products Design and Manufacturing  Nationality: Taiwan  Applying for: Trademark Renewal  Challenges:  The trademark had not been used in several years since its original approval in 2006     Computer Hardware Company sought renewal for a trademark it had previously been approved of by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The trademark was initially approved in 2006 but was currently not being used on the company products. Even though the company had not recently been using the trademark on its products, it still felt that it would be beneficial and advantageous for the trademark to be renewed and still active. Without renewal, the trademark would simply be canceled. As such, the company came to us at Tsang and Associates on April 28, 2016 hoping that we could guide their filing of a Combined Declaration of Use and/or Excusable Nonuse/Application for Renewal of Registration of a Mark under Sections 8 & 9. We received approval on August 2, 2016.   Keys to Success   When Computer Hardware Company came to us, we strongly felt that we could guide an effective and thorough process in overcoming any potential obstacles that were present. According to the USPTO regulations, we were required to show that the trademark was still in use in addition to applying for the renewal of registration. In order to tackle both requirements, we helped the company to file a Combined Section 8/9 Filing. Challenges arose because the trademark that was to be renewed had not been in use by the company on its products for several years. As necessary for the filing, we needed to upload a photograph indicating that the trademark appeared on the products.  The company had stopped putting the trademark on its products several years ago and thus currently had no product displaying the trademark. In order to overcome this obstacle, we guided the company through the entire process of producing and manufacturing a product labeled with the approved trademark. We were thus able to upload a photograph of this product to satisfy the USPTO requirement. After fulfilling the usage part of the renewal process, we then assisted the company in the renewal of the registration.  Throughout this entire renewal process, we were careful to adhere to the dates and deadlines for renewal. Otherwise, the registration would have been canceled, forcing the company to lose its trademark of ten years. The company was extremely thankful to have our professional assistance in the renewal procedure, ensuring that all necessary steps were taken for a successful trademark renewal.   Outcome   After compiling all of the necessary components, we filed the Combined Section 8/9 Filing on April 28, 2016. We received approval on August 2, 2016.

A company wished to renew a trademark that had no longer been added onto its products.

Tagged: Trademark

Joseph Tsang
July 1, 2017

Joseph Tsang
July 1, 2017
       Successful Name Change Case    Client: Ms. Ning*  Applying for: Name Change for Daughter  Nationality: China  Age of Child: 2  Challenges:  Missing Father making it difficult to serve the notice of name change     Ms. Ning came to us at Tsang and Associates hoping that we could help her obtain a name change for her daughter. She had sexual relations with a man 3 years prior and became pregnant. Ms. Ning, a strong advocate for human rights, elected to not have an abortion and instead to give birth to her child. Unfortunately, when the baby was born, the father disappeared, leaving Ms. Ning to care for her baby. Now, Ms. Ning desired that her daughter would take her name, Ning, as her surname rather than the name of the father who was now distant from her daughter’s life. Ms. Ning longed to establish a more personal and intimate connection with her daughter through a name change. As such, she asked us for assistance in completing the name change process. We filed the name change application on June 17, 2016 and following a court hearing on August 9, 2016 received approval of the name change.   Keys to Success   When Ms. Ning first came to us, we strongly believed that we could carry her through the entire process of changing her daughter’s name. We helped her complete all the necessary paperwork with her as the petitioner on behalf of her daughter. Once we filed all the paperwork, we received a notice to appear before the court for a hearing, the final hurdle standing between Ms. Ning’s daughter and a new name. The difficulty that arose in tackling this process was that the court “[ordered] that all persons interested in this matter appear before the court at the hearing”. This meant that the notice of the time and place of the hearing was required to be served to the father of the child. This was challenging because the father was nowhere to be found. Ms. Ning had lost contact with the father after he disappeared and thus, it would be extremely difficult to serve the notice of the hearing to the father.  In order to fulfill this requirement, we tried searching for the father through multiple outlets but to no avail. This meant that we had to serve the notice through publication. In doing this, we contacted a local newspaper and formed a name change publication qualifying the name change hearing; this indicated that the notice had been served to the father. Initially, Ms. Ning was extremely nervous and was not sure how to properly explain the missing father.  Following the approval, we assisted Ms. Ning and her daughter even more. We guided them along in making the proper changes to any documents necessary. We helped them in their Social Security application, U.S. Passport renewal, and the China Embassy application to conform to the completed name change.   Outcome   We filed the name change application in June of 2016 and received approval less than 2 months later, along with making the necessary changes to any documentation.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.

As strong advocate for human rights, a mother wished to change her child's name so that the child did not have her missing father's last name.

Tagged: Name Change

Law Clerk
June 15, 2017

Law Clerk
June 15, 2017
       SUCCESSFUL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT   Challenges: At the time of the report, Mr. Smith was 80 years old.  The divorce was decades ago, and Mr. Smith did not wish to wait 9 months for a new divorce filing.  A recent interesting success story at Tsang & Associates involved quite a bit of detective work uncovering the divorce records of U.S. citizen Mr. Smith*, who hoped to petition for his current wife, Mrs. Lopez; this proved no easy task. This was due to the fact that, unfortunately, Mr. Smith’s ex-wife had filed for the divorce, and he had no knowledge of where she was, or where she filed for the divorce. The only information he had available was an old high school reunion yearbook. Moreover, obtaining government records such as this with little knowledge of their whereabouts typically takes copious amounts of time, time that Mr. Smith, who was diagnosed with a terminal illness, did not have.  In this unfortunate circumstance, Mr. Smith and Mrs. Lopez reached out to Tsang & Associates in the hopes that we could track down that elusive divorce record. Tsang & Associates immediately enlisted the help of a private investigator, who was able to locate several potential addresses of the ex-wife, but not the divorce document itself. Our attorney then sent letters to each of the different addresses, hoping to reach Mr. Smith’s ex-wife.   Outcome   Fortunately, we received email correspondence from the ex-wife, and after a phone call and a discussion on dogs,  we were able to locate the divorce records  so Mr. Smith and Mrs. Lopez could be rest assured that their petition would be approved. The firm was excited to take part in such interesting work, and is greatly pleased to have located the documents from a single high school reunion yearbook.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.

With only a single yearbook and very limited time, we helped an 80-year-old man successfully find records of his previous divorce from decades prior.

Tagged: Investigative Report

Law Clerk
June 1, 2017

Law Clerk
June 1, 2017
       Successful I-290B (Motion to Reopen) Case    Applicant: Mr. Kang  Nationality: Taiwan  Applying for: Motion to Reopen and Reconsider [I-290B]  Case Type: I-485  Time: 3 months  Challenges: Previous denial of I-485 due to insufficient evidence showing that Mr. Kang was not at fault for unlawful presence   Desperate, Mr. Kang came to Tsang and Associates seeking assistance after recently being denied his I-485 adjustment to permanent resident status, in hopes that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services would reopen his I-485 petition. If his petition did not get reopened, he would have to leave the United States at the expiration of his current visa or go through the entire filing process again hoping for a more favorable outcome. Mr. Kang had been denied on the basis that he did not provide sufficient evidence that explained that he was not at fault for not having been issued any I-20 Certificates of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student Status during the years 1997-2001, his high school years, prior to being reinstated to his F-1 Academic Student status while at the University of California, Los Angeles. After trying to apply for his I-485 readjustment of status and being denied, Mr. Kang franticly tried to find an attorney to help him take the next step in his case. When he found us at Tsang and Associates, we helped him create a Form I-290B Motion to Reopen and Motion to Reconsider. He received his denial on February 24, 2016 and we submitted the Motion to Reopen and Motion to Reconsider on March 21, 2016; approval for the Motion was given on June 21, 2016.   Keys to Success   Even though Mr. Kang was initially rejected from his readjustment of status, we believed strongly in his case and were confident that Mr. Kang’s petition for readjustment of status would be reopened after review. We had to file the motion to reopen by March 25, 2016- 30 days after the initial denial notice. We first had to tackle the issue of Mr. Kang’s unlawful presence during the years 1997-2001. We showed that per USCIS policy, there are exceptions to failing to maintain lawful immigration status. These include the applicant being restored to status and also if the failure to maintain status was not the fault of the applicant. Mr. Kang’s situation met both of these exceptions, opening up the door for reconsideration.  In our motion to reopen, we stressed that Mr. Kang had already been reinstated under F-1 student status in 2003, and therefore should have been allowed to adjust status under USCIS regulations. We highlighted that because Mr. Kang was indeed allowed reinstatement back in 2003, he had already met the requirements of USCIS to have his student status and Form I-20 reinstated.  In addition, we had to properly address the reasons for denial given by USCIS, being the lack of evidence showing that the failure to maintain status was not the fault of Mr. Kang. We first submitted an affidavit from the father of Mr. Kang, in which he himself admitted that he was to blame along with the Mr. Kang’s sister who was the de facto guardian, for not ensuring that Mr. Kang went through the proper procedural steps to receive I-20 status.  Furthermore, we asked the school district at which Mr. Kang attended to write a letter detailing the circumstances of Mr. Kang’s enrollment at the school. The letter stated that “there were no inquires made or conversations initiated with him regarding his immigration status” and therefore no I-20 was issued to authorize his attendance as an F-1 foreign student. We thus demonstrated that the father, sister, and school district were the ones to blame in not providing Mr. Kang, a minor at that time and thus understandably not aware of the situation, with the proper procedures for foreign student status. In fact, we established that no action was taken during Mr. Kang’s high school years; only when Mr. Kang was informed of his unlawful status at UCLA, was he made aware of the circumstances surrounding his immigrant status. We emphasized that once Mr. Kang was indeed made aware of his unlawful status, he immediately had the situation rectified through UCLA’s International Student Center.  We proved that Mr. Kang’s case should be reopened and reconsidered, that his unlawful presence should be excused, and that Mr. Kang should indeed be allowed to readjust his status.   Outcome   We received approval of the petition to reopen Mr. Kang’s case in 3 months on June 21, 2016.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.

A man with unlawful presence, a complex history, and various miscommunication between documentation successfully reopens his I-485 petition.

Tagged: I-485, I-290B MTR

Law Clerk
May 15, 2017

Law Clerk
May 15, 2017
       Successful L-1A RFE Case    Nationality: Chinese  Adjudicated By: US Consulate  Industry: Rubber (Material Goods)  Company: Startup  Position: CEO  Case: L-1A Extension  Challenge: Only 2 Employees in U.S. Office   Strong legal advice and an impeccable command of the law can be the difference between L-1A approval and denial.  With prior L-1A denial, complicating the matter is that there are times when USCIS officers have a very poor command of their own rules and regulations.  Mr. Wong was transferred to the U.S. from their China based parent company to establish the U.S. subsidiary. However, the company only had 2 employees and 3 contractors with very limited office space. When the case was adjudicated by the immigration officer, he requested further evidence regarding the employment structure of the corporation showing that Mr. Wong was performing as a manager and executive in such a small operation ant not involved in the day-to-day operations of the business..  More specifically, the immigration officer stated that the applicant could not be both a manager and an executive and asked the applicants to only apply for one position.   Immigration Officer also requested additional evidence regarding the employment structure of the corporation to prove that the applicant was performing as either a manager or executive and not involved in the day-to-day operations of the business.   Keys To Success   As Mr. Wang was in fact involved in both a managerial and executive position and held some day to day responsibilities, it seemed that the case was doomed.  However, Tsang & Associates was able to successfully prove to the immigration officer that a L-1A transferee could be both an executive and manager and perform both duties by citing previously affirmed case law and successful appeal cases.  Holding managerial and executive duties are not mutually exclusive.   We showed with convincing evidence that the applicant was both an executive in establishing the business and a manager in helping maintain the business operation.   Second, to prove that that our client was performing at a managerial level we prepared a detailed explanation regarding the management structure of the company, explained how each personnel in the company contributed to its success, provided easy to understand flowcharts and power point presentations that explained how the company worked, and a detailed and well-designed business plan that justifies the small operation of the business. It was the company’s burden to show that the applicant was not involved in day to day operations and how the employees of the company did the majority of the work. To do this our attorneys interviewed each of the employees, contractors, and managers to have a full understanding of how their business operated on a day to day bases in order to present to the immigration officer a clear picture of how the company operated.  “When the RFE came in, I thought my case was done for.  Thankfully, Joseph and Chen- Cho were able to find why USCIS was in the wrong and helped me win my case”- Mr. Wong   Outcome   Our client’s L-1A application was accepted and approved within two weeks of the request for evidence.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.

A CEO with only 2 employees in the U.S. office successfully proves managerial / executive capacity for a Request for Evidence.  

Tagged: RFE, L-1A, Visa

Law Clerk
April 26, 2017

Law Clerk
April 26, 2017
       Successful I-290B (Motion to Reopen) Case    Type:  I-130 Petition for Alien Relative  Relationship:  Sibling of US Citizen  Country:  India  Date: 2012-2013  Difficulties:  The common mother had two different names.  This caused confusion for the officer.  The Marriage certificate had not been created at the time of the common parent’s marriage.  We needed to conduct a DNA test.  This is very time consuming as it required participation by the Petitioner, and the Beneficiary and Common Parent both in India.     In May 2012, Petitioner filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative, the Beneficiary was the Petitioner’s brother.  A week later USCIS sent a Request for Evidence to the Petitioner to establish that the Beneficiary and the petitioner in fact share common parenthood with both the father and the mother. Two months later the Petitioner submitted an affidavit for the father’s name changes, a copy of the Beneficiary’s birth certificate, the affidavit of the Beneficiary explaining the lateness of the birth certificate registry, and other evidence.  Denial: On January 18, 2016 the adjudicating officer denied the I-130 Petition on the grounds that the officer was not convinced of the sibling relationship between Beneficiary and Petitioner. The adjudicating officer had felt that the inconsistent names of the family members raised doubts about the validity of the relationship.   I-130 Approval of Mother-Son Relationship between Petitioner and Mother   USCIS had recently approved the I-130 petition for the Petitioner on behalf of the common mother of the Petitioner and Beneficiary. This established that the USCIS had already reviewed and approved the familial link between the Petitioner and the listed mother. T&A submitted this as evidence to establish the link between the Petitioner and the common mother.   Affidavit Providing Evidence of Mother’s Name Change   T&A submitted an affidavit validating the common mother’s name change. The previous adjudicating officer for the I-130 petition in question was not provided with this document and denied the new I-130 petition in part because of the confusion regarding the mother’s identity.   Marriage Affidavit from common mother and common father   T&A submitted a copy of the common mother’s affidavit which stated that she and the common father, (deceased), were married and that a marriage certificate had not been created at the time of their marriage. Therefore, the mother’s affidavit was submitted in place of a marriage certificate. The affidavit demonstrated that their marriage occurred before the Beneficiary’s birth. By showing the marriage relationship between the common mother and the deceased father T&A was able to demonstrate the relationship between the Petitioner and Beneficiary.   Income Tax Card for Mother and Father   By showing the Income Tax Card, we established a legal, familial, and economic relationship between the common mother and the common father.   DNA Testing   DNA results performed between the Petitioner, the Beneficiary, and their common mother indicated with a “probability of maternity” that both were siblings to the same mother.  The new DNA evidence that we submitted suggested that a maternal link between Petitioner and Beneficiary was highly likely.   Outcome   Upon the submission of the new evidence and the filing of the Motion to Reopen, Tsang & Associates was able to win the I-130 petition.  USCIS accepted the familial relations between Petitioner and Beneficiary on the basis of the new evidence submitted by Tsang & Associates.

After the USCIS denies a family's I-130 application, we asked for a Motion to Reopen and successfully established familial relations, despite having very few documents that were outdated and inconsistent.

Tagged: I-130, I-290B MTR

Contact Us for a Free Consultation
Back to Top
EB-1 A&B
EB-1A Alien of Extraordinary Ability
EB-1A Extraordinary Ability
EB-1A T&A Process
EB-1B Outstanding Researcher/Professor
EB-1B T&A Process
EB-1C
EB-1C Multinational Executives/Managers
EB-1C Employed Abroad
EB-1C Managerial or Executive Capacity
EB-1C T&A Process
EB-1C Pitfalls
EB-1C FAQ
I-751
I-751 Removal of Conditions (Marriage)
I-751 Common Situations
I-751 Pitfalls
I-751 T&A Process
I-751 FAQ
I-751 Waiver
I-751 Waiver
I-751 Waiver Keys To Success
I-751 Waiver (Divorce)
I-751 Waiver (Abuse/Battery)
I-751 Waiver (Extreme Hardship)
I-751 Waiver T&A Process
I-751 Waiver FAQ
L-1A
L-1A Managers/Executives
L1-A Affiliation
L1-A Previous One Year Employment
L1-A Managerial or Executive Capacity
L1-A New Office
L-1A Pitfalls
L-2 Family Members
L-1A T&A Process
N-400
N-400 Naturalization
Residency Requirement
Good Moral Character
Civics and English Test
N-400 Interview Tips
N-400 Requirements
N-400 Requirements (Spouse/Children)
N-400 T&A Process
N-400 Pitfalls
N-400 Benefits
O-1
O-1 Persons of Extraordinary Ability
O-1 Extraordinary Ability
O-1 Consultations / Advisory Opinions
O-1 Petitioner
O-1 Self Petition / Entrepreneur
O-2 and O-3 Accompanying Individuals
O-1 Additional Information
O-1 T&A Process
18830 Norwalk Blvd, Artesia, California(562) 924-1981INFO@TSANGSLAW.COM

The information on this website is only intended for general information purposes and should not be construed as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Reading or viewing this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.