What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 5pm Friday 9am - 5pm

Kameli Law - En

Home
United States
Chicago, IL
Kameli Law - En

Call Directions Website

Chicago Immigration Attorneys. Business Immigration Services: Eb1, Eb2-NIW, L-1, E-2, E2, Eb5 visas

Established in 1996, the Law Offices of Kameli and Associates is a full-service law firm located in Chicago with years of experience in:

- U.S. Corporate Law: protection of intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions processes, corporate litigation, shareholder disputes, transaction law, bank loans, and other financing cases;

- Employment Law: tackling any legal trouble in the workplace like labor relations, compensation for workers, employee benefits, discrimination against employees, minimum wage, and social security, etc.;

- Legal Intricacies of Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Technology: helping to start dealing with cryptocurrency or ones who have legal issues or got defrauded;

10/10/2026

Receiving an NIW RFE that appears to question all three prongs can make it tempting to respond by adding everything available:

More letters.
More reports.
More citations.
More documents.

But the size of the response is not the same thing as the quality of the response.

Before adding an exhibit, ask:

What did USCIS say is missing?

What needs to be established?

What directly answers that concern?

And what does this particular document actually prove?

For example, another recommendation letter may not solve a problem if it simply repeats that the applicant is talented.

A large report about the importance of an industry may not answer a question about the applicant’s own record.

A contract or project document matters only to the extent that it supports a fact USCIS actually questioned.

An RFE is not yet a denial. It is a notice identifying issues USCIS believes remain unresolved.

The response should therefore be built around the actual notice—not around the assumption that more pages automatically make the case stronger.

For an individualized review of an NIW RFE, the original petition, and possible response strategy, you can schedule a professional consultation with Taher Kameli:

https://kameli.com/consultation-taher-kameli/

10/09/2026

Many professionals working in technology, healthcare, engineering, consulting, or other industries face the same NIW problem:

Their strongest work is not public.

Maybe the project belongs to an employer.

Maybe the technical details are proprietary.

Maybe the work involves confidential client information or an NDA.

That does not mean the applicant should disclose protected information just to build an immigration case.

Confidential work does not change the NIW legal standard, and confidentiality obligations still matter.

Depending on the facts and what can lawfully be disclosed, useful documentation may sometimes include non-confidential project descriptions, properly drafted letters, aggregated metrics, public materials, authorized project records, or other verification.

But the label on the document is not what makes it useful.

A letter, contract, metric, or project description still has to credibly prove something relevant.

For an applied professional, the key question is:

How can the record document what you actually accomplished—and what it shows about your ability to advance the proposed endeavor—without exposing information you are not authorized to disclose?

The objective is stronger documentation, not unnecessary disclosure.

10/07/2026

If you have 8 citations, 20 citations, or 75 citations, does that tell you whether you qualify for EB-2 NIW?

Not by itself.

There is no universal USCIS citation cutoff for NIW cases.

A specific number—10, 50, 100, or anything else—should not be treated as an automatic legal threshold.

Citations can still matter.

For researchers, they may help document that other people have read, used, discussed, or built on prior work. In the right case, that can be meaningful evidence of influence or related success.

But citation count is still evidence—not the NIW test itself.

The real question is what the record proves about the applicant in relation to the proposed endeavor.

For Prong 2, that means asking whether the evidence supports that the person is well positioned to advance that endeavor.

So a low-citation applicant should not assume the case fails because the citation number looks small.

And a highly cited applicant should not assume the number solves the rest of the NIW analysis.

If you want to evaluate how your own evidence fits the NIW framework, you can request an NIW Evaluation here:

https://legal.kameli.com/evaluation-fb

10/05/2026

An employer can participate in STEM OPT and still say no to H-1B sponsorship later.

That can sound inconsistent until you separate the two processes.

For graduates who qualify, STEM OPT can provide a 24-month extension of post-completion OPT.

But the employer has specific responsibilities. Among the applicable requirements, the employer must participate in E-Verify, and the student and employer must complete and sign Form I-983.

So STEM OPT is not a process in which the employer does nothing.

At the same time, those responsibilities are not the same as filing an H-1B petition.

A company may be comfortable participating in STEM OPT but have a policy against future H-1B filings.

And the opposite assumption can also cause problems: an employer’s willingness to consider H-1B sponsorship does not automatically mean that a particular STEM OPT arrangement satisfies the program requirements.

The better question is not simply:

“Does this employer sponsor?”

Ask what kind of participation is actually being discussed.

STEM OPT participation and H-1B sponsorship are different processes with different requirements.

10/03/2026

You can be authorized to work today and still potentially need employer immigration action later.

Those two facts are not contradictory.

For example, an eligible F-1 graduate with valid post-completion OPT may already have employment authorization for qualifying work. The employer does not need to file an H-1B petition just to make that existing OPT authorization valid.

But OPT has limits.

It does not mean the person can work indefinitely, and it does not mean the employer has promised to participate in a future immigration process.

That is why two common recruiting questions need to be separated:

“Are you authorized to work now?”

and

“Will you need sponsorship in the future?”

A graduate may accurately answer yes to current work authorization while also explaining that continued employment later could require additional immigration action.

The important part is to answer both questions truthfully and understand what each one is actually asking.

Current authorization is about what permits you to work now.

Future sponsorship is about what may be needed later—and whether the employer is willing to participate.

If OPT timing, employer policy, possible STEM eligibility, and longer-term options are becoming difficult to separate, a professional consultation with Taher Kameli may help clarify the situation:

https://kameli.com/consultation-taher-kameli/

10/01/2026

“AI is important to the United States.”

That may be useful context in an NIW petition—but it does not automatically prove that every AI-related endeavor has national importance.

The same problem can appear with cybersecurity, healthcare shortages, manufacturing, infrastructure, or other government priorities.

A federal strategy might establish that the government considers a particular issue important.

But there is still another question:

What is this specific proposed endeavor expected to do about that issue?

Think of it this way:

A national priority identifies the context.

The proposed endeavor identifies the undertaking.

The mechanism explains how the work could create the claimed effect.

The evidence supports why those prospective implications are credible.

So if a petition relies heavily on statements such as “AI is a federal priority” or “the United States has a healthcare shortage,” it is worth asking what comes next.

How does the specific endeavor connect to that priority?

How could its prospective impact occur?

And what evidence supports that connection?

Government priority can strengthen the context.

It should not be treated as automatic proof of national importance.

09/29/2026

A government report can be very useful in an EB-2 NIW case.

But what exactly does it prove?

Suppose a federal report shows that a cybersecurity threat, physician shortage, infrastructure problem, or manufacturing challenge matters nationally.

That may establish important context.

It does not automatically establish that one particular petitioner’s proposed endeavor has national importance.

There is still a bridge to build:

Problem → Specific endeavor → How the endeavor could create impact → Broader prospective implications → Evidence

For example, a report may prove that a cybersecurity vulnerability is serious.

The petition still needs to explain what the petitioner actually proposes to do about it, how that work could plausibly address the problem, and what evidence supports the claimed broader impact.

The same principle applies in healthcare, engineering, technology, entrepreneurship, and other fields.

More documents do not automatically solve the issue.

What matters is whether the evidence supports the connections the Prong 1 argument relies on.

That is why a useful question for every exhibit is:

“What does this evidence actually prove?”

If you want to evaluate whether your proposed endeavor and supporting evidence fit the current NIW framework, you can start here:

https://legal.kameli.com/evaluation-fb

09/27/2026

A common NIW misconception is that working for one company automatically makes the proposed endeavor “just a job.”

That is too simple.

Your employer and your proposed endeavor are not necessarily the same thing.

A physician may carry out an endeavor through a hospital.

A researcher may advance an endeavor through a university.

An engineer may develop technology while working for a company.

In those situations, the organization can be the place or vehicle through which the work is carried forward.

But there is an equally important distinction on the other side:

Showing that your work benefits your employer or its clients does not, by itself, establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.

The real analysis is about the specific future undertaking and its prospective implications.

So the question is not simply:

“How many employers are involved?”

Instead, separate these two ideas:

Where will the work be performed?

What undertaking is being advanced, and what prospective impact is being claimed?

That distinction can make the NIW analysis much clearer.

09/25/2026

Working for one employer does not automatically make an NIW endeavor invalid.

The employer and the proposed endeavor are different concepts.

A university, hospital, technology company, business, or other organization may be the vehicle through which a professional carries out the proposed work.

So the key question is not:

“Do I work for only one employer?”

It is:

“What specific undertaking am I proposing to advance, and what are its prospective implications?”

That distinction matters because neither side of the equation should be oversimplified.

Working through one employer does not automatically defeat national importance.

But ordinary benefit to that employer or its clients does not automatically establish national importance either.

The analysis remains focused on the specific endeavor and the prospective impact being claimed.

A hospital may be where a physician advances an endeavor.

A company may be where an engineer develops a technology.

A university may be where a researcher conducts the work.

Those organizations can be ex*****on vehicles without being the endeavor itself.

When reviewing an NIW case, separate the vehicle through which the work will be performed from the undertaking and prospective impact being presented to USCIS.

09/23/2026

"Getting a new job offer after an H-1B layoff is a major step—but it is not the same as having a new H-1B case filed.

There are immigration steps between those two events.

A simplified sequence looks like this:

Job offer → employer and LCA/petition preparation → qualifying H-1B petition filed → possible portability employment if the legal requirements are met.

Why does this matter?

Imagine two H-1B workers who both receive offer letters on Monday.

Worker A’s new employer completes the required immigration preparation and properly files the H-1B petition while the worker qualifies for portability.

Worker B’s employer is still preparing the case.

Both people have jobs waiting for them.

But they do not necessarily have the same work-authorization position.

An offer letter alone does not trigger H-1B portability.

What matters is whether the qualifying petition has actually been filed and whether the individual satisfies the portability requirements.

After an H-1B layoff, that difference between “I have an offer” and “my qualifying petition has been filed” can be legally significant.

Address

Chicago, IL

Opening Hours

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 5pm
Friday	9am - 5pm

Telephone

+13122331000

Website

https://kameli.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Kameli Law - En posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Want your business to be the top-listed law practice in Chicago?