USCIS Issues New RFE Policy

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Consular Processing Leave a comment

By attorney: Michele Strickland

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)  posted a policy memorandum, on Friday July 13, 2018 announcing its new policy to deny an application, petition, or request without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) when the required initial evidence was not submitted or the evidence of record fails to establish eligibility. 

This policy is effective September 11, 2018, and applies to all applications, petitions, and requests, except for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) adjudications, received after that date.

“For too long, our immigration system has been bogged down with frivolous or meritless claims that slow down processing for everyone, including legitimate petitioners. Through this long overdue policy change, USCIS is restoring full discretion to our immigration officers to deny incomplete and ineligible applications and petitions submitted for immigration benefits,” said USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna. “Doing so will discourage frivolous filings and skeletal applications used to game the system, ensure our resources are not wasted, and ultimately improve our agency’s ability to efficiently and fairly adjudicate requests for immigration benefits in full accordance with our laws.”  

Since 2013 USCIS issued RFEs and NOIDs when the evidence submitted at the time of filing did not establish eligibility. The old policy limited denials without RFEs or NOIDs to statutory denials by providing that RFEs should be issued unless there was “no possibility” of approval. USCIS stated that this “no possibility” policy limited the ability of an adjudicator to use his or her discretion.

According to USCIS, the policy announced on Friday restores authority to the adjudicator to use full discretion to deny applications, petitions, and requests without first issuing an RFE or a NOID, when appropriate. This policy is intended to discourage frivolous or incomplete filings used as “placeholder” filings and encourage applicants, petitioners, and requestors to be diligent in collecting and submitting required evidence.  

If all required initial evidence is not submitted with the benefit request, USCIS, in its discretion, may deny the benefit request for failure to establish eligibility based on lack of required initial evidence. Examples of filings that may be denied without sending an RFE or NOID include, but are not limited to:     

  • Waiver applications submitted with little to no supporting evidence; or
  • Cases where the regulations, the statute, or form instructions require the submission of an official document or other form of evidence establishing eligibility at the time of filing and there is no such submission. For example, an Affidavit of Support (Form I-864), if required, was not submitted with an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485).


This means that all applications submitted to USCIS after September 11, 2018 must be complete at time of submission.  Failure to include all required documentation and evidence will likely result in a denial it is unclear at this time what the appeal process would be like as well.  It is extremely important that you seek the advice of an experienced immigration lawyer before submitting an application to USCIS. Contact our Houston office at (713) 589-2085 or our New Jersey office at (201) 210-8240 to schedule a consultation with any one of our experienced attorneys.

USCIS Can Now Issue NTAs for Denial of an Application: What it means for you

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Immigration Law, Immigration Trends Leave a comment

By attorney: Nadia Khalid

On July 05, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) revealed new policy guidelines regarding Notice to Appear issuances. A Notice to Appear (“NTA”), as defined by USCIS, “is a document given to an alien that instructs them to appear before an immigration judge on a certain date…the issuance of an NTA commences removal proceedings against the alien.” Failure to appear for an NTA can result in automatic removal proceedings, resulting in a 5-year bar from entry to the United States.

In the past, USCIS had to consult with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CPB”) to issue an NTA.

Now, however, under this new guideline, USCIS has authority to issue NTAs without consulting with ICE or CPB for any of the following reasons:

  • Denial of an application;
  • Denial of an N-400 because of a previous criminal offense;
  • Applications involving substantiated fraud or misrepresentation;
  • Abuse of public benefits by the applicant;
  • Criminal cases with a conviction or pending charge; and/or
  • Unlawful presence resulting from the denial of an application or petition.

Because of this new policy guideline, it is imperative that you disclose everything to your legal representative, including past offenses, criminal charges, receiving public benefits, or any past denied immigration applications. It is equally important to understand that if your application is denied for any reason, an automatic NTA may be issued based on unlawful presence resulting from the denial of said application or petition.

If you are interested in learning more about this new policy memorandum or about how it might affect a pending or past immigration application or petition, feel free to contact our office at 713-589-2085 or email us at to set up a consultation.

What is Happening – A Humanitarian Crisis and Call to Action

Posted on by Ruby Powers in Deportation, family separation, immigration bill, Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Legislative Reform Leave a comment

What is Happening – A Humanitarian Crisis (Family Separation/Zero Tolerance)

I know we have been inundated as immigration attorneys with more changes in the last year and a half than most of the Obama Administration but I want to give you an update from what I have seen on the ground regarding family separation. I volunteered at Port Isabel 2 weeks after the AILA Annual Conference(, stayed in touch with those I visited as well as other volunteers, organized efforts, communicated updates with the media, took pro bono case work, sent my associate attorney to volunteer last week, and didn’t unplug during my annual vacation last week because of this.  I have been following the crisis on local, state, and national levels in many capabilities and all of them shirking my law firm management duties to serve a greater cause.

As you know, the Admin. charged parents with criminal illegal entry to separate their kids and to label their children as UACs to place in ORR facilities under the “Zero Tolerance” policy (on a large scale level starting May 7, 2018). ACLU’s efforts (see Ms. L. v ICE  +) and the public outcry (see E.O. of June 20) have been putting the Administration on notice to act to reverse it but it has been a due process struggle at every juncture as the Administration creates road blocks at each step of the way (see Matter of A.B., etc.)

What I saw was parents who were traumatized, they were lied to when they were separated from their children. They didn’t have the opportunity to speak with their young child until after the June 20 Executive Order, which meant a day or two before or a day or two after their credible fear interview. Would you want to give your whole life story over the phone to a Government that lied to you and ripped your child from you? Many come from countries that they don’t trust in the first place and why do we expect them to tell their secrets, they didn’t even tell their family, their spouse, their children, the a person on the other side of the phone while they are living with the trauma of separation? That is why we need to help them to create a class action lawsuit and give them more opportunities to fight for due process.

Many received negative credible fear interview results. Upon Immigration Judge review, there were often summarily kept with the same decision, often without the IJ even allowing the attorney to speak (Enter Article 1 vs Article 3 court discussion). But for the ACLU’s litigation, many would have been deported without their children by now. Let that sink in.

There were approx. 103 “tender age” separations including one mother I spoke with at Port Isabel detention center(PIDC) who was separated from her 5-month old baby she was breastfeeding.

Approx. 2,551 other minor children were separated and spread around the country.  This last group must be reunited by the Ms. L v Ice deadline given by Judge Sabraw of Thursday, July 26. Many of us who have seen the inner workings don’t believe this deadline will be met but progress has been expedited in the last few days.

Starting Friday, July 13th, 9 children were reunited with parents at PIDC and then later more parents were reunited. They were reunited after 30-60 days of separation, placed in a shelter for a day or two and then on their way. Oh, and given master calendar hearings in Harlingen for a month after their departure of detention even though they plan to relocated around the country. This is not specific to Port Isabel, I am hearing reports from other facilities like Arizona, etc.  I am afraid the Administration is setting many up for failure hoping the reunified parents and traumatized families will miss their deadlines and be deported in absentia.

Things are changes every minute. We are experiencing a tsunami with various points of collateral damage at each step of the way. Non-profits and organizations have not been able to keep up. Think travel ban 1.0 at the airports or for us in Houston, Harvey, and then take it to the next level because our Government knew they were traumatizing children, gutting asylum law, and creating chaos simultaneously  without a plan to fix it.  They were invoking trauma on children in the name of deterrence of asylum-seekers but all the while dodging asylum law obligations and general human rights mores.

Call to Action

  1. Take a pro bono case or two – these people need our help and they need it soon: I think the Admin wants them to get in absentia orders so let’s not let that happen. I know of grassroots efforts collecting information of the parents being reunited and I too have information of parents, if you want a lead on a case, I can help. (
  2. Encourage your friends to donate to groups doing the best good, help in other non-legal ways and volunteer on a short-term basis:


  1. Let’s remind our US citizen friends and clients to register to vote and to actually vote. Put instructions on how to register and upcoming elections in your lobby and your social media. Bring it up in consultations.
  2. Be the voice for those who are not being heard –
    1. Advocacy tools and Op-ed templates:
    2. Speak to the media and journalists – give immigrants a voice and explain the situation as a subject matter expert.

Let’s do this!

Ruby L. Powers

Board Certified Immigration Attorney, Powers Law Group, P.C.

July 19, 2018

Seeking Asylum: Factors Affecting the Credibility of Your Case

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Immigration Law Leave a comment

By attorney: Nadia Khalid


In the past few months, the asylum-seeking process has experienced harsh changes and new policy directives which have changed the factors affecting the credibility and/or provability of an asylum seeker’s case.  One of the factors we have noticed while attending asylum interviews is the effect of switching from an alternate visa status to having asylum pending. For instance, switching from an E-2 that has expired to filing for asylum.

Generally, applicants for asylum must file for asylum within one year of entry to the United States. However, in some cases, asylum applicants have “extraordinary circumstances” which allow them to file for asylum past one year of entry. One of the “extraordinary circumstances” is alternative visa status. However, simply having an alternative visa status does not allow an applicant to file for asylum at their discretion. Filing for asylum, even while holding an alternative visa status, must be done in a reasonable amount of time in relation to: the date the alternative visa status is obtained; the date when the precipitating event in your home country occurs; the date when you apply for asylum; and the date when your alternative visa status expires.

Hence, the real question is what constitutes reasonability? In our experience, officers begun to focus on the timeline of when the precipitating factor occurred in your home country that made you seek asylum, and if you took an unreasonable amount of time after entry to the US to apply for asylum even though you have an alternative visa status.

This is important to consider as some people have come to view asylum as simply an alternative visa status. Given the large influx of asylum applications, there has been increased scrutiny to prove an applicant’s asylum claim. Whether there is past persecution and/or fear of future persecution is now weighed with extreme scrutiny especially when an applicant comes with an alternative visa status.

The reason for this scrutiny is, at times, reasonable. Officers see applications where asylum is filed for the sake of procuring legal status in the country, and not because they seek the protection offered by asylum to people who are fleeing their home country from various forms of persecution.

Our advice to those seeking asylum while on an alternative visa status or with an expired visa status is this: research and understand the components of an asylum claim before filing an asylum application. Filing for asylum for the sake of obtaining legal status alone is a double edged sword. While you may be able to obtain legal status temporarily, asylum interviews and decisions are being issued at a much faster pace than ever before.  If you file for asylum in the next month, there is a strong likelihood you will be issued an interview within a few months and based on the strength of your claim, you will either be recommended approval or referred to court. Once you are in court, you are in active removal proceedings. And while the court process can take 2-4 years with an option to appeal the final decision, it is still a very long and involved process to have to undergo if asylum was filed in the first place just for the sake of legal status and not for the sake of protection from persecution, past and/or future.

If you have any questions or are thinking about filing for asylum, please call our office at 713-589-2085 or email us at We hope to help you determine the best solution for whatever visa status you are currently on or hoping to obtain.

E-2 Statüm Tehlikede Mi: Neler Esaslı Değişiklik Teşkil Ediyor?

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Immigration Law Leave a comment

Tarafindan Avukat Mustafa Çetin

E-2 göçmen olmayan bir vize kategorisidir ve bu statüde bulunan yabancı yatırımcılar göçmen değildirler. Bu yatırımlar uzun süreler devam edebilmekte ve bu statüye sahip olanlar mevcut durumu kanıksama eğilimi göstermektedirler. Ancak göçmenlik kanunları E-2 statüsündeki göçmen olmayan yabancıyı şöyle tanımlamaktadır:

  1. Sadece geçimini kazanma amacıyla nispeten küçük miktardaki bir sermayeyi önemsiz bir işletmeye yatırmaktan farklı olarak, ABD’deki iyi niyetli (hilesiz) bir işletmeye esaslı miktarda sermaye yatıran veya aktif olarak yatırma aşamasında bulunan;
  2. Sadece bu işletmeyi geliştirmek ve yönetmek amacıyla ülkeye girmeyi amaçlayan; ve
  3. Anlaşma yatırımcısı (E-2) statüsü sona erdiğinde veya sona erdirildiğinde ABD’den ayrılma niyeti olan.

E-2 statüsü, statü sahibi tarafından kontrol edilen işletmeyle doğrudan bağlantılıdır. Bu işletmeyi etkileyen herhangi bir “esaslı değişiklik” gerçekleşmeden önce USCIS tarafından onaylanmalıdır. Üstelik öncesinde onaylanmayan bir esaslı değişiklik E-2 statüsünü sona erdirmektedir.

“Esaslı değişiklik”, bunlarla sınırlı olmamak üzere birleşme, devralma, yabancının görev aldığı birimin satılması gibi, ilgili işletmenin ana unsurlarındaki asli değişiklikler veya anlaşma yatırımcısı veya çalışanın kuruluşla daha önceden onaylanan ilişkisini etkileyen önemli olaylar olarak tanımlanmaktadır.

Bu tanım oldukça geniş olarak düzenlenmiştir ve sonuçları ağırdır. Eğer E-2 statüsünün bağlı olduğu işletme bu tanım doğrultusunda “esaslı değişiklik” olarak değerlendirilebilecek birtakım değişikliklere uğradıysa, bu hususu bir an önce bir avukata danışmanızı tavsiye ediyoruz.

Statü dışına çıkma geleceğinizi ciddi manada etkileyebilir. Eğer statü dışında kalmış olarak ülkede bulunursanız üç yıl ya da on yıl giriş yasağına maruz kalabilirsiniz. Eğer giriş yasağına maruz kalırsanız: herhangi bir vizeye başvuramaz, ülkeye giriş isteyemez veya statünüzün kalıcı oturuma (yeşil kart) çevrilmesini talep edemezsiniz.

Öte yandan, statü dışına çıkma iltica gibi diğer kanun yollarına başvurma hakkınızı da etkileyebilir. Bu durumdaki gibi koşulların değişmesi, ülkeye girdikten sonra 1 yıl içinde ilticaya başvurma kuralının istisnasını teşkil etmektedir. Ancak iltica başvurusu makul bir süre içerisinde yapılmalıdır. Bu da bir an önce başvurunun hazırlanıp gönderilmesini gerektirmektedir.

Sorularınız veya danışmak için bize (713) 589-2085 (TX), (201)-210-8240 (NJ) numaralı telefonlardan veya eposta adresinden ulaşabilirsiniz.

Is my E-2 Status in Jeopardy: What Constitutes Substantial Change?

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Asylum, Immigration Law, Investment Immigration Leave a comment

By: Mustafa Cetin

E-2 is a nonimmigrant visa category and alien investors holding this status are nonimmigrants. These investments can last a long time and holders of this status should be reminded of a few key points. Immigration laws define an E-2 holder nonimmigrant alien as one who:

  1. Has invested or is actively in the process of investing a substantial amount of capital in a bona fide enterprise in the United States, as distinct from a relatively small amount of capital in a marginal enterprise solely for the purpose of earning a living;
  2. Is seeking entry solely to develop and direct the enterprise; and
  3. Intends to depart the United States upon the expiration or termination of treaty investor (E-2) status.

E-2 status directly depends on the entity controlled by a status holder. Any “substantive change” affecting the entity must be approved beforehand by USCIS. Furthermore, a substantive change without prior approval terminates E-2 status.

A “substantive change” is defined as a fundamental change in the employing entity’s basic characteristics, such as, but not limited to, a merger, acquisition, sale of the division where the alien is employed, or major event which affects the treaty investor or employee’s previously approved relationship with the organization.”

This definition is broad, and consequences are dire. If the entity which was the basis of your E-2 status underwent changes that could be considered a “substantive change” under this definition, we recommend you seek consultation immediately or if you plan to make a change, seek counsel in advance.

Going out of status might have a serious impact on your future. If you accrue unlawful presence you may be subject to three years or ten years bars to admission. If you receive a bar to admission: you are not eligible to apply for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status to permanent residence.

On the other hand, going out of status might affect your eligibility for other remedies such as asylum. A change of circumstances like this is an exception to the requirement of filing for asylum within 1 year of entry. However, an asylum application must be made within a reasonable time which would require a filing as soon as possible.

You can contact us by phone at (713) 589-2085 (TX) or (201)-210-8240 (NJ) or by email at for further questions or advice.

Houston businesses to lose if family separation continues

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Immigration Law, Immigration Trends Leave a comment

By: Attorney Ruby Powers

After Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration would be implementing a new “Zero Tolerance Policy,” stories began surfacing about family separation. Under the new policy, all immigrants found to have crossed the border illegally would be criminally prosecuted, a practice that rarely occurred before the policy was announced.

In the past weeks, the news has highlighted how the policy has led to widespread family separation on our border. Texas, specifically, has recently been criticized for being complicit, being one of the many states housing immigrants in detention centers.

More recently, Mayor Sylvester Turner announced there was a proposal to open a detention center for children in the City of Houston. On June 19, Mayor Turner held a joint press conference with the Chief of Police Art Acevedo and other community activists, such as State Senator Sylvia Garcia. During the press conference, Mayor Turner expressed his opposition to the proposed site and explained the location of the proposed detention center was meant to serve the homeless community.

To many Houstonians, downtown Houston houses the city’s sports complexes like the Dynamo Stadium and the Toyota Center as well as the home to the 2017 World Champions Houston Astros. Among the many parks, restaurants, and bars that populate the areas around the centers that make up downtown Houston, businesses also acknowledge the city’s homeless problems.

According to Mayor Turner’s proposition, the site of the planned detention center was meant to serve as a rehabilitation center that could have helped the city’s homeless and mentally ill population. With this center, business and restaurants alike could have seen a reduction in the city’s homeless population that many cite as a deterrent for the public to explore downtown Houston.

Houston has often been a hub where cultures and languages could intermingle and flourish. As one of the largest cities of the country and the most diverse in America, Houston has been seen as an attractive city to start or grow a business. This public image of Houston may not stand if instead, it becomes home to one of the detention centers that house children.

This center could have the same effect that the controversial SB4 bill had for Texas. After Texas was associated as a supporter of this controversial policy, associations like the American Immigration Lawyers Association decided to cancel their scheduled events in Texas and relocate to another state, costing the host city thousands of dollars in hotel fees and conference revenue. The policy that separates families is not only reprehensible, it could impact Houston’s prosperity.

While President Trump may blame the Democratic party for the ineptitude of his own administration, as Mayor Turner stated in a press conference, “this issue is beyond party. This issue is a humanitarian issue that is being treated as a political issue.”

Due to public pressure, as of June 20, President Trump issued an executive order to stop family separation but the impact of that order is uncertain.

Ruby L. Powers is an immigration attorney and owns her own Houston-based firm, Powers Law Group P.C.

Published by: Houston Business Journal

Immigration Resources for Family Separation

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Immigration Law, Immigration Trends Leave a comment

The following link lists possible ways of helping the immigrant community with family separation.

Click below for:

Immigration Resources for Family Separation


Attorney Ruby L. Powers graduates in Class 36 of Leadership Houston

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Immigration Law Leave a comment

June 9, 2018:  Powers Law Group, P.C. congratulates our founding attorney, Ruby L. Powers, for completing the prestigious Leadership Houston program. Over the course of 10 months and among 56 classmates, individuals with diverse backgrounds representing a variety of professions learned more about how the city functions to find a way they could best incorporate in their talents to make it a better place. This was more evident and timely starting class immediately after Hurricane Harvey in August 2017.

During the course of the program, the individuals participated in a city-wide scavenger hunt, a leadership-themed book club, and created and executed a

community service project.  The curriculum followed a theme for every full-day of the class including Business, Houston and Community Development, Government, Health& Wellness, Diversity, Education, Economy, and more.

The class project was Resources on the Go (ROGO).  The class created a service project from an idea at the opening retreat, a trailer equipped with supplies and resources to serve the homeless and transitioning youth in Houston.  On June 7, 2018, with a City of Houston Certificate of Recognition a Proclamation was presented by City Council Member David W. Robinson whereby ROGO was handover to Covenant House Texas who will utilize ROGO to service more homeless youth and to help transition them to a more stable environment.

On June 9, Attorney Powers attended the closing retreat and reflected about this experience by stating, “I have learned more about this diverse city, connected with local leaders and emerging leaders, and made new friends who helped me learn more about myself and this city. Finally, I made a greater commitment to myself and my community.”

Here at the firm, Attorney Powers has always instilled in her staff and others to help the community and to always go the extra mile. We are happy to see her achieve another accomplishment and are excited about the impact she will continue to have in the community. Congratulations to the Houston class of 36!

PERM: Residente permanente por medio de empleo

Posted on by Carlos Gutierrez in Immigration Law Leave a comment

 Por la abogada Michele Strickland

Los extranjeros podrán obtener residencia permanente mediante un patrocinador de empleo. La Certificación de trabajo por medio de PERM (Program Electronic Management system) Programa Electrónico de sistema de administración, es la manera más común que un empleado utiliza para patrocinar a un individuo para obtener la residencia permanente. El proceso comienza con el Departamento de Trabajo (DOL) y una vez que la aplicación está certificada, esta se presenta a USCIS para obtener la aplicación para visa de inmigrante (green card).

Paso número uno: La descripción del trabajo

Redactar la descripción del trabajo y los requerimientos toma usualmente bastante tiempo, ya que se necesita preparar una aplicación PERM apropiada. Para elaborar una aplicación apropiada, el abogado debe revisar los requisitos mínimos para el empleo, las cualidades laborales del extranjero, cartas de referencia y los documentos de educación. Una vez que la descripción del trabajo está finalizado, se utiliza mediante todo el proceso.

Paso numero dos: determinación del salario prevaleciente

Primero, la descripción es enviada al Departamento de Trabajo para solicitar determinar el salario prevaleciente. El salara prevaleciente es establecido anualmente por el DOL (por sus siglas en inglés) se determina por la región geográfica y por el resultado de las encuestas de los empleados. El DOL determina el salario prevaleciente para cierta posición, revisando los requerimientos de educación y experiencia para la posición. Este paso toma de 2 meses y medio a 3. Cuando el salario prevaleciente está establecido se prosigue con el reclutamiento.

Paso tres: Reclutamiento

Para que la aplicación de PERM se exitosa el empleador tiene que demostrar que no hay trabajadores de Estados Unidos (Ciudadanos o residentes permanentes) disponibles y calificados para la posición. Esto se lleva a cabo, siguiendo el reclutamiento prescrito. Para todos los trabajos el reclutamiento mandatorio requiere: la publicación en el periódico por dos Domingos; una orden de trabajo por 30 días con la agencia de trabajo del Estado; y una posición interna por 10 días. Si es una posición profesional al menos 3 se las siguientes formas adicionales de reclutamiento son requeridas: ferias de trabajo; publicación en la página de internet del empleador; publicación en sitios web de búsqueda de trabajo; reclutamiento dentro de campus, comercio y organizaciones profesionales; eventos privados del empleador; programa de recomendación de empleados; periódicos étnicos o locales; o publicaciones en radio y televisión. El reclutamiento dura por 30 días desde que la primera publicación se realizó, seguido de esto hay un periodo de espera por 30 días para permitir al empleador revisar las aplicaciones. Los solicitantes no calificados podrían ser eliminados y los solicitantes calificados pueden ser entrevistados. El empleador trabajo con un abogado para preparar el reporte de reclutamiento.

Al final de los 30 días de espera  la Certificación de trabajo es preparada por un abogado y revisada por el empleador y el extranjero. Una vez finalizada es enviada electrónicamente al DOL mediante PERM. El tiempo actual de espera para este paso es de 5-7 meses. El DOL certificara la aplicación o realizara una auditoria. La auditoría puede añadir varios meses a este proceso.

Paso cuatro: La visa de inmígrate (Green card)

 Una vez que la solicitud es certificada, el empleador solicita la Peritación de trabajador inmigrante con USCIS. En la mayoría de los casos el extranjero puede enviar una aplicación para ajustar el estatus de residente permanente  (Green card) en conjunto con la petición de empleo. Este paso toma un año. Ahora USCIS requiere entrevistas para todas las solicitudes basadas en empleo.

Los Nacionales de algunos países caen en un atraso de visa basado en el empleo y deben esperar hasta que la fecha de prioridad para presentar su ajuste de estatus. Estos retrasos son de 3-10 años.

Dado a la complejidad natural de este largo proceso, es recomendable que usted busque asistencia de un abogado de inmigración experto negocios. Un abogado guiara a todas las partes involucradas en el proceso y se asegurara que el proceso fluya de una manera eficiente.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 29 30   Next »