Page 1 of 3

Naich 14, 2u14

Embassy of the 0niteu States of Ameiica
0. S. Embassy
!"# %&'()*+,- ./0101&2 3&' 4 5&21((16'420 7&'8/'
./0101&2/'#
C/2/31E14'F#
)*+,- %1K126 !/E/1L0 5M(N/'#
Beai Sii oi Nauam:
This lettei is submitteu in suppoit of Ni. 's effoits to iegain his lawful B-1B
status. 0n Febiuaiy 24, 2u14, Ni. ieceiveu an appioval notice foi an B-1B tiansfei, but it
was ueteimineu that he was out of status anu accoiuingly an I-94 was not issueu.
Ni. pieviously hau an B-1B visa unuei the petitionei as
an accountant. 0n August 1S, 2u1S, Ni. ieceiveu his last paycheck fiom anu was
teiminateu by Ni. CE0 of Theie weie appaiently accounting
iiiegulaiities iaiseu by Ni. which leu to his uismissal. was ielieveu of his uuties
by the Boaiu of piioi to Becembei S1, 2u1S. faileu to infoimNi. that he
woulu ievoke Ni. 's B-1B visa that hau been obtaineu by Fuitheimoie, anu
faileu to auvise Ni. that his visa hau been ievokeu (the legal aspect of this failuie
is uealt with moie fully unuei the lawsection of the lettei).
Because Ni. was not maue awaie that his status hau been ievokeu, anu acting on the
unueistanuing that it was still in valiu status, he was able to secuie employment as an accountant
with 0n August Su (some two weeks aftei he left
instiucteu Immigiation Counsel to file a Laboi Conuition Application foi Nonimmigiant Woikeis
(LCA) anu FoimI-129 Petition foi a Nonimmigiant Woikei. Because theie was some uelay uue to
a misunueistanuing iegaiuing Feueial Employei Iuentification Numbei, the LCA was not
ceitifieu until Septembei 17, anu the I-129 Petition was fileu with 0SCIS on Septembei Su. Ni.
was not at fault foi the uelay in filing the LCA oi the I-129 Petition.
The fiist inuication that Ni. ieceiveu about his being out of status was upon the
ieceipt of the FoimI-797E Request foi Eviuence ("RFE") uateu Becembei S, 2u1S. 0n
Febiuaiy 4, Immigiation Counsel foi anu Ni. fileu a uetaileu iesponse to the

Page 2 of 3
RFE pioviuing an explanation anu iequesteu an extension of status. Although the I-129
Petition was appioveu, his iequest foi an extension of status was not. Shoitly theieaftei,
Ni. maue tiavel plans to leave the 0niteu States foi 0ganua to pievent the acciual
of unlawful piesence.
Please note Ni. stuuieu accountancy in the 0niteu States anu, piioi to his
employment with has hau two pieviously appioveu B-1B appiovals. Piioi to Ni.
joining he was employeu by the piestigious accounting fiim
. As soon as he ieceiveu the appioval of the B-1B status anu the uecision that he was
out of status, he immeuiately maue plans to leave the 0niteu States. At all mateiial times,
Ni. has tiieu to comply with 0.S. immigiation law.
All of these facts seive as eviuence that Ni. hau no intention of violating 0.S.
immigiation law, namely 8 C.F.R. 214.1(c)(4), titleu "Timely Filing anu Naintenance of
Status." Ni. uiu eveiything in his powei to secuie employment as soon as he was
teiminateu by The events that culminateu in Ni. being out of status weie
outsiue the contiol of both anu Ni.
;D7
Pait of 's legal obligations was to ensuie that theie is eviuence of a piopei oi bona
fiue teimination in a cleai anu unequivocal notification in wiiting to Ni. that the
ielationship has been teiminateu, as well as in the infoimation about the teimination
pioviueu to 0SCIS. In auuition to notifying 0SCIS, it is also iecommenueu that
shoulu have infoimeu the anti-fiauu section of the 0.S. consulate in which the visa stamp
was oiiginally issueu that the B-1B petition has been withuiawn anu notify the 0.S.
Bepaitment of Laboi that the employei was withuiawing the LCA. is also liable foi
ieasonable costs of the ietuin tianspoitation of the foieign national abioau, meaning
shoulu have paiu foi Ni. 's tiavel to his last place of iesiuence, namely
0ganua. The only payment pioviueu to Ni. was his paystub uateu August 1S, 2u1S.
with iespect, faileu uismally in complying with any of its obligations. It appeais that
(an immigiation attoiney himself) acting unilateially ueciueu to ievoke Ni.
's visa without complying with any of the othei obligations foi which was
iesponsible. No uocumentation has been fuinisheu to Ni. , oi Immigiation
Counsel about 's legal obligations. It stanus to ieason that if Ni. hau ieceiveu
the lettei wiitten by oi been paiu the cost of aiifaie, theie woulu have been no
ieason foi Immigiation Counsel to iequest the change of status baseu on the August 1S
paystub if Immigiation Counsel, anu Ni. hau known he was out of status.
shoulu have kept uocumentation of all the steps it has taken. Fuithei, if Ni.
iefuseu the ticket oi cash to pay foi a ticket, shoulu have hau himsign a statement,
with inuepenuent witnesses if possible, stating cleaily that he ueclineu acceptance of the
ticket oi cash. shoulu have also infoimeu Ni. of the employei's obligation
to notify 0SCIS of the teimination anu of the eventual ievocation of the employee's B-1B
petition that woulu iesult. It has no uocumentation as it uiu not comply with any of its

Page 3 of 3
obligations, anu has thus foiceu Ni. into a situation, in which his position with
anu his continueu ability to iesiue anu woik legally in the 0niteu States has been
enuangeieu thiough no fault of his own.
In the mattei of !"#$%&' $) *+,'%-"', 4uS F.Su 488, 49u (7th Cii. 2uuS), the couit in
consiueiing the late filing of a motion to ieopen stateu, ".The test foi whethei to apply
equitable tolling lies not in the length of the uelay, but iathei , it is whethei the claimant
coulu ieasonably have expecteu to file eailiei."
A motion to ieopen must be fileu within Su uays of the uate of the uecision sought foi
ieopening, unless the uelay was "ieasonable anu was beyonu the contiol of the applicant oi
petitionei." 8 C.F.R. 1uS.S(a). While case lawis scaice on this paiticulai fact pattein, the
couits have consiueieu whethei equitable tolling is applicable to motions to ieopen in
geneial. In !"#$%&', the 0.S. Couit of Appeals foi the Seventh Ciicuit founu that the ueauline
foi filing a motion to ieopen is not juiisuictional anu theiefoie subject to equitable tolling.
!"#$%&', 4uS F.Su at 49u. The test foi whethei to apply equitable tolling lies not in the
length of the uelay, but iathei, it is whethei the claimant coulu ieasonably have been
expecteu to file eailiei. ./.
0SCIS iegulations pioviue ielief foi aliens who have faileu, thiough no fault of theii own, to
maintain status. Foi example, in consiueiing whethei an alien maintaineu status, oi fileu an
application to change oi extenu status timely, the 0SCIS shoulu consiuei: (1) whethei the
uelay was uue to extiaoiuinaiy ciicumstances beyonu the contiol of the alien, which weie
commensuiate with the ciicumstances; (2) the alien has not otheiwise violateu his status;
(S) the alien iemains a bona fiue nonimmigiant; anu (4) the alien is not in iemoval
pioceeuings. 8 C.F.R. 214.1(c)(4). The 0SCIS shoulu also compaie this iegulation with 8
C.F.R. 24S.1(u)(2), which uefines the paienthetical phiase "thiough no fault of his own oi
foi technical ieasons," founu in the aujustment of status iequiiements.
We woulu theiefoie iespectfully iequest the 0.S. Embassy exeicise its uiscietion in this
instance anu appiove Ni. 's status, given the peiiou of time between the ievocation
by anu the filing uate foi his B-1B petition with being one month anu two uays
aftei the 0SCIS sent the lettei of ievocation to complying with the iequest to ievoke
Ni. 's B-1B petition.
We thank you foi youi kinu attention to this mattei, anu if you have any questions, please
uo not hesitate to contact oui office.
veiy Tiuly Youis,
:T" A7=!9GU ;D7%)!H
Ashley Bwoisky, Esq.