Published on:

New Published Administrative Appeals Office Decision Regarding Immigration Cases

Recent Published AAO Decisions:

Matter of Leacheng International, INC., 26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015); In the context of an I-140 Petition for a multinational manager or executive, there is no requirement that the beneficiary has been “doing business” with an outside third party pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j()2) for at least one year immediately preceding the petition. The AAO found that it was sufficient that the beneficiary was “doing business” within an affiliated multinational organization.

Matter of Christo’s INC., 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015); In an odd context for this issue to arise, the AAO found that the INA § 204(c) marriage fraud bar does not apply to completely fabricated marriages, that is, marriages that never actually existed in the first place. The AAO found that in order for the bar to apply the alleged perpetrator must have at least attempted or conspired to enter into a fraudulent marriage. Where there is evidence that the alien submitted false documents regarding a fictitious marriage, but did not actually enter into a marriage or attempt or conspire to do so, the bar does not apply.

Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015); In the context of an H1-B Petition, the AAO held that when there is a material change to the terms and conditions of employment, the petitioner must file an amended or new H-1B petition with the required LCA. In this case, the AAO found that when an H-1B beneficiary went to work in a new geographical area for LCA purposes, an area that was not contemplated or disclosed in the original H-1B Petition, that constituted a material change in circumstances and a new or amended H-1B Petition was required.