Church Law

APA Lawsuit: VAWA Denial Reversed | O.H vs. U.S. Attorney General

Mr. O.H. filed a petition under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to obtain a green card as the abused spouse of a U.S. citizen. The Vermont Service Center of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) denied Mr. O.H.’s petition, arguing that his Nigerian divorce decree with which he terminated his marriage to his ex-wife was fraudulent.


Mr. O.H. came to Alonge Law Firm after the denial and we took on his case. Mr. Alonge filed a civil rights lawsuit against the U.S. Attorney General, the Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Vermont Service Center. Mr. Alonge argued that the denial violates the Administrative Procedure Act and asked the court to set aside the decision as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. The court accepted the case and set a date for the government to file a response to the complaint.

Before the response deadline, the government reached out to Mr. Alonge to settle the matter out of court. The Vermont Service Center reopened the case and approved Mr. O. H’s green card application.

Mandamus Lawsuit: Green Card Approved After 8 years| I.O. vs. U.S. Attorney General   

Mr. I.O’s green card application had been pending for over 8 years. The application was based on a VAWA petition. After USCIS approved the underlying VAWA petition and interviewed Mr. I.O., it refused to adjudicate the green card application for over 8 years. Instead, USCIS opened a fraud investigation seeking to rescind the approved VAWA petition. Mr. I.O. sent many inquiries to USCIS through his lawyers to no avail. He even got his congressman to write to USCIS, but the agency refused to honor the congressional inquiry.


Mr. Alonge filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Attorney General and the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service. In the lawsuit, Mr. Alonge asked the court to issue a Writ of Mandamus ordering USCIS to adjudicate the Green Card petition within 30 days. The court accepted the complaint and set a deadline for the government to respond.


Before the response deadline, the government reached out to Mr. Alonge to settle the matter out of court. USCIS approved Mr. I.O’s Green Card application.

Mandamus Lawsuit: Green Card Approved After 2.5 years| N. A. vs. U.S. Attorney General

Mr. N.A’s green card application had been pending for 2.5 years. The application was based on marriage to a U.S. citizen. After USCIS interviewed Mr. N.A. and his U.S. citizen spouse, it refused to decide the green card application for 2.5 years. Because Mr. Alonge was present at the interview and noted there was no reason to hold up the case, Mr. Alonge filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Attorney General and the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service. In the lawsuit, Mr. Alonge asked the court to issue a Writ of Mandamus ordering USCIS to adjudicate the Green Card petition within 30 days. The court accepted the complaint and set a deadline for the government to respond.
Before the response deadline, the government reached out to Mr. Alonge to settle the matter out of court. USCIS approved Mr. N.A’s Green Card application.

VAWA Petition Approved with No Supporting Documents

Client married a U.S. citizen who abused her. She has no documentary proof of good faith marriage, joint residence, or abuse. The only evidence submitted in the case is the client’s affidavit and those of witnesses. USCIS sent a lengthy request for evidence asking client to provide documentary evidence of good faith marriage, joint residence, and abuse. The client had no evidence of such. We carefully responded to the request for evidence, arguing that client’s case should never be denied for her inability to provide documentary evidence because those evidence are simply not available due to the abusive nature of the marriage. USCIS approved the case.

VAWA Petition Approved Without Any Physical Abuse

Male client was married to abusive U.S. citizen. There was no physical abuse in the case, and all of the abuses were emotional. We helped the client build a strong VAWA petition which was approved without an RFE.

VAWA Denial Overturned.

Client’s VAWA petition was denied for insufficient evidence of good faith marriage. We filed a motion to reopen arguing that the evidence submitted by the client met the standard set forth in the law establishing VAWA. We warned USCIS of the danger of asking for proof that exceeds the requirement of the law. Case was approved.

VAWA Denial Overturned.​

Client’s VAWA petition was denied for insufficient evidence of good faith marriage and joint residence. We helped the client gather witness affidavits which we submitted in support of a motion to reopen and reconsider. Case was approved.

Mandamus Lawsuit: Religious Worker Petition Approved.

Client, a church, petitioned for one of its pastors. USCIS refused to adjudicate the petition for 2 years. After 2 inquiries, Mr. Alonge filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Attorney General and the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service. In the lawsuit, Mr. Alonge asked the court to issue a Writ of Mandamus ordering USCIS to adjudicate the petition within 30 days. The court accepted the complaint and set a deadline for the government to respond. 


Before the response deadline, the government reached out to Mr. Alonge to settle the matter out of court. USCIS approved the petition.

Marriage-Based I-130 Approved after Response to NOID.

U.S. citizen wife petitioned for her noncitizen husband to become a green card holder. After interviewing the couple, USCIS opined that the marriage was a sham marriage. It also noted that the noncitizen’s divorce decree from Nigeria was fraudulent. For these reasons, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID). Alonge Law Firm responded to the NOID arguing that USCIS was mistaken in its assessment of the case. The case was approved.

Religious Worker Petition Granted After Response to NOID

A church petitioned for one of its pastors. USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) stating that the offered salary was below the federal and state minimum wages. Hence, the job offer violates federal and state laws and USCIS cannot approve a petition that violates the law. Alonge Law Firm responded to the NOID making legal arguments that USCIS’s position has no basis in law and that the agency itself is violating the law by failing to approve the petition. USCIS approved the petition.

Religious Worker Visa granted after Response to NOID

A church petitioned for one of its pastors. USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) stating that an immigration site visitor attempted to conduct a site visit and discovered that the church did not exist. This was a lie. Alonge Law Firm responded to the NOID providing compelling evidence that the church exists, and that USCIS has no basis in law to deny the petition. USCIS made a U-turn and approved the petition.

Religious Worker Visa granted after Response to NOID

A church petitioned for a religious worker to work as its Music Director. USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) stating that the position of Music Director is not a religious position. Alonge Law Firm pointed USCIS’s attention to the regulation: it is not the job title, but the actual job description that determines whether the position is religious in nature. USCIS reversed the decision and approved the petition.

Immigration Judge granted Asylum to Nigerian Circumcised Woman

Ms. O.O. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She claimed that she was circumcised in Nigeria, and she fears that her daughter would be circumcised if returned to Nigeria. USCIS denied the application and referred Ms. O.O to the Immigration Judge to initiate her removal from the United States. Ms. O.O. hired Alonge Law Firm. Mr. Alonge submitted additional evidence and legal argument to the Immigration Judge, and a hearing was scheduled on the matter. On the day of the hearing, the government attorney reached out to Mr. Alonge offering to drop deportation charges against Ms. O.O. This kind of settlement is usually good for the client because it helps the client avoid the risk of deportation. But accepting this settlement would also mean that Ms. O.O. will be denied an opportunity to have her asylum application heard by the Immigration Judge. Because Ms. O.O. did not want to risk deportation, she told Mr. Alonge she would accept the offer. However, Mr. Alonge convinced Ms. O.O. to take the risk because she has a strong asylum application. She listened. After about 2 hours of hearing testimonies and arguments from both sides, the Immigration Judge granted Ms. O.O. asylum.

Immigration Judge granted Asylum to Kenyan Woman who fears circumcision.

Ms. R.M. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She fears she would be circumcised if she returned to Kenya. The Asylum Officer denied the petition, claiming that Ms. R.M. did not file her asylum application within one year of entering the United States. Ms. R.M was then referred to the Immigration Judge to initiate removal proceedings. Before the Immigration Judge, Mr. Alonge argued that Ms. R.M. qualifies for an exception to the one-year filing deadline under the regulations. Even though the attorney for the government vehemently opposed Mr. Alonge’s argument, the Immigration Judge agreed with Mr. Alonge that Ms. R.M. qualifies for an exception to the one-year asylum filing deadline and granted her asylum application.

Immigration Judge granted Asylum to bisexual Nigerian Woman

Ms. F.A. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She fears persecution if returned to Nigeria due to her sexual orientation as a bisexual woman. The Asylum Offer denied her application because the officer found her not to be credible. She was then referred to the Immigration Judge to initiate removal proceedings. Before the Immigration Judge, Mr. Alonge presented additional evidence and arguments to support Ms. F.A.’s claim and overcome the adverse credibility finding. The Immigration Judge found Ms. F.A. credible and approved her asylum application.

Asylum Office approved asylum for circumcised Nigerian Woman

Ms. F.K. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She claimed she was circumcised in Nigeria. The Asylum Officer granted her application.

Asylum Office approved asylum for circumcised Nigerian Woman

Ms. F.K. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She claimed she was circumcised in Nigeria. The Asylum Officer granted her application.

Asylum Office approved asylum for circumcised Nigerian Woman

Ms. F.K. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She claimed she was circumcised in Nigeria. The Asylum Officer granted her application.

Asylum Office approved asylum for circumcised Nigerian Woman

Ms. F.K. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She claimed she was circumcised in Nigeria. The Asylum Officer granted her application.

Asylum Office approved asylum for circumcised Nigerian Woman

Ms. F.K. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She claimed she was circumcised in Nigeria. The Asylum Officer granted her application.

Asylum Office approved asylum for circumcised Nigerian Woman

Ms. F.K. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She claimed she was circumcised in Nigeria. The Asylum Officer granted her application.

Asylum Office approved asylum for circumcised Nigerian Woman

Ms. F.K. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She claimed she was circumcised in Nigeria. The Asylum Officer granted her application.