We have overturned critical H1B memos, such as the Itinerary and Employer-Employee relationship Neufeld Memos of 2010. Notably, the ITServe vs. USCIS/Cissna case resulted in a pivotal March 10, 2020, District Court opinion that repudiated key USCIS actions and a May 20, 2020, judge’s opinion in Georgia that ruled against USCIS policies.

👨⚖️ Background
I served with the US Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation-District Court Section, where I defended immigration regulations and decisions under the APA. I also worked with the DHS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), focusing on employment-based legal issues and advising on litigation in these areas.

📚 Notable Cases:

📝 ITServe v. Neilsen 
In 2018, DHS published a rule prohibiting third-party placement for F-1 students on OPT/CPT without required “notice and comment process.” Wasden Law challenged this, resulting in DHS deleting the unlawful rule before court defense.

⚖️ ITServe v. Cissna 
Wasden Law challenged the Trump administration’s new mandatory requirements for H-1B employers, resulting in a court ruling that the requirements violated statutory and regulatory language. The government settled, disavowing the rules and restoring approval rates to the 90% range.

📃 Eddakuni v. Mayorkas 
Wasden Law successfully challenged the biometric requirement for H-4/L-2 applicants, leading to USCIS withdrawing the requirement and settling to process visa petitions concurrently with extensions and EADs, restoring previous processing times.

👩⚖️ Shergill v. Mayorkas 
Wasden Law argued that USCIS violated statutes regarding L-2 and H-4 EADs, resulting in a settlement where L-2s no longer need to apply for EADs, and H-4s are eligible for auto-extension of EADs for up to 180 days.

For Consultations, please visit our website at https://wasden.law/ Click “BOOK NOW” Button.

Wasden Immigration Litigation

Org chart

Teams

Offices