Menu
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 Services (USCIS) denied Mr. O.H.’s petition, claiming that his Nigerian divorce decree, which he used to terminate his marriage to his ex-wife, was fraudulent.
After this denial, Mr. O.H. approached Alonge Law Firm for assistance with his case. Attorney Alonge subsequently filed a civil rights lawsuit against the U.S. Attorney General, the Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Director of the Vermont Service Center. Mr. Alonge argued that the denial violated the Administrative Procedure Act and requested the court to set aside the decision, claiming it was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. The court accepted the case and scheduled a date for the government to respond to the complaint.
Before the response deadline, the government contacted Mr. Alonge to negotiate a settlement out of court. The Vermont Service Center then reopened the case and approved Mr. O.H.’s green card application.
Mr. I.O.’s green card application had been pending for over eight years. His 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 more than eight years. Instead, USCIS opened a fraud investigation aimed at rescinding the approved VAWA petition. Despite sending numerous inquiries to USCIS through his lawyers, Mr. O.I. received no response. He even sought assistance from his congressman, but USCIS also ignored the congressional inquiry.
In response, Mr. Alonge sued the U.S. Attorney General and the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). In the lawsuit, Mr. Alonge requested that the court issue a Writ of Mandamus compelling 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 its response deadline, the government contacted Mr. Alonge to settle the matter out of court. As a result, USCIS approved Mr. I.O.’s green card application.
Mr. N.A.’s green card application had been pending for 2.5 years. The application was based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. After USCIS interviewed Mr. N.A. and his U.S. citizen spouse, it did not make a decision on the application for an extended time. Observing that there was no justifiable reason for the delay, Mr. Alonge sued the U.S. Attorney General and the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). In the lawsuit, Mr. Alonge requested 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 contacted Mr. Alonge to discuss a possible out-of-court settlement. As a result, USCIS approved Mr. N.A.’s green card application.
The client was married to a U.S. citizen who abused her. Unfortunately, she does not have any documentary proof of a good faith marriage, joint residence, or the abuse she suffered. The only evidence submitted in her case consists of her affidavit and those of witnesses. USCIS issued a lengthy request for evidence, asking the client to provide documentation related to her good faith marriage, joint residence, and abuse. However, the client was unable to provide such evidence due to the abusive nature of the marriage. We carefully responded to the request for evidence, arguing that her case should not be denied solely for her inability to provide documentary proof, as it was not available due to her circumstances. Ultimately, USCIS approved the case.
Male client was married to an abusive U.S. citizen. There was no physical abuse in this case; all forms of abuse were emotional. We assisted the client in presenting a strong VAWA petition, which was approved without a Request for Evidence (RFE).
Client’s VAWA petition was denied due to a lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating a good faith marriage. In response, we filed a motion to reopen the case, arguing that the evidence the client submitted met the legal standards for VAWA eligibility. We cautioned USCIS about the risks of requesting evidence that exceeds the requirements set forth by the law. Ultimately, the case was approved.lient’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 outlined in the law establishing VAWA. We warned USCIS of the danger of asking for proof that exceeds the law’s requirements. The case was approved.
Client’s VAWA petition was denied due to a lack of sufficient evidence for a good faith marriage and joint residence. We assisted the client in gathering witness affidavits, which we submitted to support a motion to reopen and reconsider. The case was eventually approved.client’s VAWA petition was denied due to insufficient evidence of good faith marriage and joint residence. We helped the client gather witness affidavits, which we submitted to support a motion to reopen and reconsider. The case was approved.
Client, a church, submitted a petition for one of its pastors. However, USCIS refused to process the petition for two years. After two inquiries, Mr. Alonge filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Attorney General and the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. In the lawsuit, Mr. Alonge requested the court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, compelling 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 contacted Mr. Alonge to propose an out-of-court settlement. Ultimately, USCIS approved the petition.lient, a church, petitioned for one of its pastors. USCIS refused to adjudicate the petition for two years. After two 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 contacted Mr. Alonge to settle the matter out of court. USCIS approved the petition.
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.
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 is violating the law by failing to approve the petition. USCIS approved the petition.
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.
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 religious. Alonge Law Firm pointed USCIS’s attention to the regulation: it is not the job title but the job description that determines whether the position is religious. USCIS reversed the decision and approved the petition.
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 she 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 arguments to the Immigration Judge, and a hearing was scheduled. 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 considered good for the client because it helps them avoid the risk of deportation. However, 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 two hours of hearing testimonies and arguments from both sides, the Immigration Judge granted Ms. O.O. asylum.
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.
Ms. F.A. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She fears persecution if she returns to Nigeria due to her sexual orientation as a bisexual woman. The Asylum Offer denied her application because the officer found her not 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.
Ms. F.K. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She claimed she was circumcised in Nigeria. The Asylum Officer granted her application.
Ms. K.O. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She claimed she was circumcised in Nigeria. The Asylum Officer granted her application.
Ms. O.O. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She claimed she was circumcised in Nigeria. The Asylum Officer granted her application.
Ms. I.F. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She claimed she was circumcised in Nigeria. The Asylum Officer granted her application.
Ms. A.A. filed her asylum application with USCIS. She claimed she was abused by her husband in Nigeria. The Asylum Officer granted her application.
Dr. K.O. applied for a green card under the EB-2 category seeking National Interest Waiver. He stated that he intends to continue his research on cancer and viral diseases. USCIS approved the petition.
Ms. K. D. applied for a green card under the EB-2 category, seeking National Interest Waiver. She holds a master’s degree in food science and stated that she intends to continue her research in this field. USCIS approved the petition.
Mr. K. D. applied for a green card under the EB-2 category seeking National Interest Waiver. He holds a master’s degree in mechanical engineering. He stated that he intends to continue his research in the field of food science. USCIS approved the petition.
Mr. A.A. applied for a green card under the EB-2 category, seeking National Interest Waiver. He holds a master’s degree in chemical engineering and stated that he intends to continue his research on carbon capture. USCIS approved the petition.
Professor S.O. applied for a green card under the EB1-A category as an individual of extraordinary ability. He is an English professor with over two decades of teaching and research experience. Alonge Law Firm argued that he qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Pastor J.L. applied for a green card under the EB1-A category as an individual of extraordinary ability. After responding to a complex request for evidence, Alonge Law Firm secured permanent residence for the pastor and his family.
Mr. A.A. applied for a nonimmigrant visa under the O1-A classification as an individual with extraordinary ability or achievement. He holds a master’s degree in offshore engineering and over 10 years of experience in the oil and gas industry. USCIS granted his application.
A music group of 19 musicians applied for nonimmigrant visas under the P-3 category as artists or entertainers coming to be part of a culturally unique program. All 19 band members were granted P-3 visas.
We will carefully assess your case and collaborate with you to develop a strategy that aims for the best possible outcomes. Our firm can represent you in matters of immigration, criminal law, personal injury, family law, and church law.
6200 Savoy Drive, Ste. 942, Houston, TX 77036
832-500-5782
713-376-8545
Alonge Law Firm. All Right Reserved.
