OUR IMMIGRATION SERVICESForm ETA-9089

Updated July 2026

What Form ETA-9089 Does in a PERM Case

Form ETA-9089 is used by a U.S. employer to request permanent labor certification in many employer-sponsored EB-2 and EB-3 cases. Filed through the Department of Labor’s FLAG system, it connects the prevailing wage record, permanent job opportunity, recruitment results, and employer attestations. The certified record later supports Form I-140 with USCIS. Errors involving the worksite, wage, minimum requirements, recruitment dates, or applicant review can lead to an audit, denial, or a later I-140 problem. Arvian reviews these elements before filing and evaluates whether the PERM record supports the intended immigrant classification.

What ETA-9089 Establishes in a PERM Labor Certification Case

Form ETA-9089 is the application through which a U.S. employer requests permanent labor certification from the Department of Labor’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification. It is used in the standard PERM process that supports many employer-sponsored EB-2 and EB-3 immigrant petitions.

The electronic process is administered through the Foreign Labor Application Gateway, commonly called FLAG. The filing uses Form ETA-9089 together with the applicable appendices and information connected to the prevailing wage determination. The record identifies the employer, foreign worker, permanent job opportunity, worksite, offered wage, recruitment steps, applicant-review results, and required attestations.

ETA-9089 is not simply a summary completed after recruitment. The strategy must be established before recruitment begins. The employer should first determine the actual duties, minimum requirements, work location, area of intended employment, wage framework, and intended immigrant classification. Those elements then need to remain consistent through the prevailing wage request, advertisements, recruitment report, ETA-9089, and later Form I-140 petition.

Core legal point: DOL certifies a specific job opportunity for a specific employer, foreign worker, and area of intended employment. Certification is not a transferable approval for any position the employer may later create.

DOL Review and USCIS Review Serve Different Legal Functions

The PERM process involves two agencies, but they do not decide the same questions. DOL determines whether the employer complied with the labor certification process and whether the statutory labor-market conditions are satisfied. The central inquiry is whether sufficient able, willing, qualified, and available U.S. workers exist for the offered position and whether employment of the foreign worker would adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.

USCIS later adjudicates Form I-140. At that stage, USCIS reviews the requested immigrant classification, the employer’s ability to pay the proffered wage, the beneficiary’s qualifications, and the consistency of the petition with the certified labor certification. DOL certification therefore does not guarantee I-140 approval.

How DOL and USCIS divide the review
Agency Primary review Typical risk
Department of Labor Prevailing wage, job opportunity, recruitment, lawful applicant rejection reasons, employer attestations, actual minimum requirements, and PERM compliance. Audit or denial caused by inconsistent recruitment, excessive requirements, incomplete documentation, an inaccurate worksite, or unlawful rejection of a qualified U.S. worker.
USCIS EB-2 or EB-3 classification, beneficiary qualifications as of the priority date, employer ability to pay, and consistency with the certified ETA-9089. I-140 request for evidence or denial because the worker did not meet the requirements on time, the position does not support the requested classification, or the financial evidence is insufficient.

Who Controls the PERM Process and Who May Review U.S. Applicants

PERM is an employer-controlled labor certification process. The employer defines the permanent position, conducts recruitment, receives applications, considers potentially qualified U.S. workers, documents lawful job-related rejection reasons, and makes the required attestations under penalty of perjury.

The foreign worker is the beneficiary of the application and provides evidence concerning education, training, employment history, licenses, and other qualifications. The beneficiary must not control recruitment or participate in decisions concerning U.S. applicants.

An attorney may advise the employer about the regulations, filing strategy, recruitment documentation, permissible requirements, and whether a proposed rejection reason appears job-related. However, the beneficiary’s attorney or agent generally may not interview or consider U.S. workers for the offered position. Applicant review should be performed by the employer representative who normally evaluates candidates for comparable non-PERM positions.

Participant responsibilities in a standard PERM case
Participant Permitted role Important limitation
Employer Defines the position, approves the wage and requirements, conducts recruitment, reviews applicants, signs the recruitment report, and files ETA-9089. The employer may reject U.S. workers only for lawful, job-related reasons connected to the stated minimum requirements.
Normal hiring personnel Interview and consider applicants using the employer’s ordinary hiring practices for comparable positions. Standards may not be changed or applied more strictly merely because the case involves a foreign worker.
Attorney or agent Advises on legal requirements, prepares filings, reviews documentation, and explains regulatory risks. The attorney should not interview or consider U.S. workers unless the narrow regulatory exception for the employer’s normal representative applies.
Foreign worker Provides accurate evidence of education, training, experience, licenses, and immigration history. The beneficiary must not direct recruitment or decide whether U.S. applicants qualify.

Information That Must Remain Consistent Through PERM and I-140

A defensible ETA-9089 filing depends on consistency. The employer should not treat the prevailing wage request, recruitment advertisements, ETA-9089, and I-140 as separate projects. Each document may be reviewed against the others.

Job duties and occupational classification

The duties should describe the actual permanent position and support the selected occupational classification. They should not be copied mechanically from an occupational database or expanded after recruitment to support a higher category.

Minimum education, experience, training, and skills

Requirements should reflect the employer’s actual minimum requirements. They should be established before recruitment, remain consistent across the PWD and advertisements, and be supported by business necessity when they exceed what is normal for the occupation.

Worksite and area of intended employment

The filing should accurately identify where the work will be performed and how any remote, hybrid, travel, client-site, or multiple-worksite arrangement affects prevailing wage and recruitment.

Offered wage and prevailing wage

The offered wage must satisfy the applicable prevailing wage rules. The employer also attests in PERM that sufficient funds are available to pay the offered wage, while USCIS conducts the separate ability-to-pay analysis during I-140 adjudication.

Beneficiary qualifications

The foreign worker generally must have met the education, training, experience, license, and other requirements of the offered position by the priority date. For a standard PERM case, the priority date is ordinarily the date DOL accepts ETA-9089 for processing.

Recruitment Timing and the PERM Document File

PERM recruitment is controlled by precise timing rules. The employer should build a calendar before placing advertisements because a correctly worded advertisement may still be unusable if it was published outside the permitted period.

For a professional occupation under the basic PERM process, recruitment normally includes a 30-day State Workforce Agency job order, advertisements on two different Sundays in an appropriate newspaper of general circulation, and three additional recruitment steps selected from the regulatory list. If the position requires both experience and an advanced degree, and a professional journal is normally used to advertise that type of opportunity, one Sunday advertisement may be replaced by an advertisement in the professional journal most likely to reach able, willing, qualified, and available U.S. workers. The notice of filing must also comply with 20 CFR 656.10.

Key timing and recordkeeping rules
Requirement General rule Why it matters
SWA job order The job order generally runs for 30 days in the area of intended employment. Incorrect dates or the wrong geographic area can invalidate a required recruitment step.
Sunday advertisements Two advertisements are normally placed on different Sundays in an appropriate newspaper of general circulation. A limited professional-journal substitution may apply when the regulatory conditions are satisfied. The advertisement must identify the employer, describe the vacancy sufficiently, and direct applicants to the employer.
Additional professional recruitment Three additional steps are required for professional occupations. Only one may consist solely of activity within 30 days before filing, and none may occur more than 180 days before filing. The employer must preserve dated evidence showing that each selected method was actually used.
Notice of filing It must generally be posted for at least 10 consecutive business days and provided between 30 and 180 days before filing. A missing or defective notice may result in denial even when external recruitment was completed.
Document retention The employer must retain the application and supporting documentation for five years from the date ETA-9089 was filed. DOL may request the audit file after filing, and the employer must be able to produce the required evidence.

What belongs in the audit file

  • Copies of advertisements, web pages, job-order records, and publication confirmations.
  • The notice of filing and evidence showing where and when it was posted.
  • The signed recruitment report describing the steps taken and results obtained.
  • Resumes and applications received from U.S. workers when required for the employer’s records or requested in an audit.
  • Contemporaneous notes explaining lawful, job-related rejection reasons.
  • Prevailing wage documentation and records supporting the worksite and wage stated in the filing.
  • Business-necessity evidence when the requirements exceed occupational norms.

Actual Minimum Requirements, Business Necessity, and Current Employees

The job requirements stated in the PERM record must be the employer’s actual minimum requirements for the offered position. An employer generally may not require U.S. applicants to possess qualifications that the employer did not require from workers hired for substantially comparable positions.

Requirements that exceed the normal level for the occupation may require a business-necessity explanation. The employer should be able to show that the duties and requirements bear a reasonable relationship to the occupation in the context of the employer’s business and are essential for the employee to perform the job in a reasonable manner.

Additional issues arise when the foreign worker already works for the sponsoring employer. DOL may examine the qualifications the worker possessed when first hired, including employment as a contractor. Experience gained with the sponsoring employer may not qualify if it was obtained in a substantially comparable position, unless an applicable regulatory exception can be established.

A narrow skill list is not automatically unlawful. The issue is whether each requirement reflects the real position, was established before recruitment, is applied equally to U.S. applicants, and can be justified when it exceeds the occupational norm.

Worksite, Remote Work, Travel, and Prevailing Wage Analysis

Remote and hybrid positions require more than adding the word “remote” to an advertisement. The employer should identify the actual place or places where the work will be performed, the area of intended employment, any reporting location, and whether travel or client-site work is a real duty of the permanent position.

The prevailing wage determination, notice of filing, advertisements, and ETA-9089 should describe the same job opportunity. A later change in headquarters, employee residence, reporting requirements, client assignment, travel pattern, or remote-work policy may require a new legal analysis before filing.

Worksite questions to resolve before recruitment
Scenario What should be established Potential problem
Fixed office position The permanent worksite, commuting area, wage source, and location used in recruitment. The employer uses a headquarters address even though the employee will permanently work elsewhere.
Remote position The employee’s expected work location, reporting structure, and any geographic restriction. The filing states unrestricted remote work while the wage and recruitment were based on a different geographic assumption.
Hybrid position The office location, remote-work frequency, commuting expectation, and geographic recruitment area. The actual arrangement materially differs from the PWD or advertisements.
Travel or client sites The frequency, duration, destinations, and business reason for travel or off-site work. Travel is omitted from recruitment or described too vaguely for applicants to understand the position.

PERM Audits, Denials, and the Limits of Post-Filing Corrections

DOL may select an application for audit through its review procedures, established selection criteria, or random selection. An audit does not by itself establish that the employer violated the regulations, but it requires the employer to prove that the recruitment and filing were compliant.

Common audit issues include unusual job requirements, foreign-language requirements, combined occupations, recent layoffs, a relationship between the employer and beneficiary, worksite questions, incomplete recruitment evidence, or rejection reasons that do not correspond to the stated minimum requirements.

ETA-9089 should not be filed with the expectation that material inconsistencies can be corrected later. PERM depends on historical facts: what the position required, what the advertisements stated, where recruitment occurred, which applicants applied, and why candidates were rejected. A substantive error may require withdrawal and a new recruitment process rather than an attempted amendment.

Frequent filing problems and practical consequences
Problem Possible consequence Pre-filing control
Different requirements across the PWD, advertisements, and ETA-9089 Audit, denial, or doubt about whether recruitment tested the correct job opportunity. Approve one requirements matrix before recruitment and compare every publication against it.
Applicant rejection based on an unstated preference DOL may determine that a potentially qualified U.S. worker was not properly considered. Use only lawful, job-related requirements stated in the PERM record.
Incomplete recruitment documentation The employer may be unable to establish that a mandatory step occurred. Collect dated evidence immediately instead of reconstructing the file after an audit notice.
Beneficiary documents do not support the requirements The PERM may be certified, but USCIS may issue an I-140 request for evidence or denial. Review diplomas, evaluations, licenses, and detailed experience letters before ETA-9089 is filed.

What Happens After DOL Certifies ETA-9089

When DOL certifies the PERM application, the employer receives the electronic Final Determination and certified filing record. The employer generally must submit Form I-140 to USCIS during the 180-day validity period shown on the Final Determination. USCIS rejects a petition supported by an expired labor certification.

If the final day of the labor certification’s validity period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, USCIS accepts the petition with the labor certification on the next business day. Because this exception is narrow, the employer should not plan the filing around the final days of the validity period.

The I-140 package should include the signed Final Determination and supporting evidence showing that the beneficiary met the position’s education, experience, training, license, and other requirements by the priority date. Evidence commonly includes diplomas, transcripts, credential evaluations, and detailed letters from former employers.

USCIS also reviews the employer’s ability to pay the proffered wage. For a petition requiring a job offer, the employer generally must establish this ability from the priority date and continuing until the beneficiary becomes a lawful permanent resident, subject to applicable regulations and portability rules.

1. Review the certified record

Confirm the employer, beneficiary, job opportunity, wage, worksite, priority date, appendices, and certification validity period.

2. Obtain the required signatures

Complete the signature process required for the Final Determination and I-140 filing package.

3. Prove the beneficiary’s qualifications

Submit evidence showing that every applicable requirement was met by the priority date.

4. Document ability to pay

Prepare the required financial evidence, which may include federal tax returns, audited financial statements, annual reports, payroll records, or other relevant evidence.

5. File within the certification period

USCIS must receive the labor-certification-based I-140 during the applicable 180-day validity period, subject to the next-business-day rule when the final day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.

Schedule A and National Interest Waiver Cases Follow Different Procedures

Schedule A occupations

Schedule A occupations do not use the standard OFLC certification and PERM recruitment procedure. DOL has predesignated certain occupations for Schedule A treatment, but the petitioning employer must still satisfy the applicable Schedule A requirements.

The employer generally submits Form I-140 directly to USCIS with a completed, uncertified Form ETA-9089, all applicable appendices, a signed uncertified Final Determination, and the required Schedule A evidence. The filing must also include a valid prevailing wage determination tracking number and evidence that the applicable notice-of-filing requirements were satisfied. USCIS reviews the labor-certification requirements under DOL regulations together with the immigrant petition.

National Interest Waiver requests

An EB-2 National Interest Waiver petition asks USCIS to waive the permanent job-offer and individual labor-certification requirements. It is not a DOL-certified PERM filing. Under current USCIS filing procedures, the NIW petitioner or self-petitioner submits the applicable Form ETA-9089 filing record directly with Form I-140, including a completed Appendix A and a signed, uncertified Final Determination, together with evidence supporting the national interest waiver request.

Do not treat these filings as interchangeable: a standard PERM application submitted to DOL, a Schedule A petition submitted directly to USCIS, and an EB-2 NIW request follow different procedures, eligibility standards, and evidence requirements.

How Arvian Reviews ETA-9089 Before Filing

A pre-filing review should test the entire employer-sponsored case, not only the fields visible in ETA-9089. Arvian examines whether the position, prevailing wage, recruitment record, beneficiary qualifications, and future I-140 evidence support one consistent immigration strategy.

Position and classification review

Review the permanent job duties, occupational classification, EB-2 or EB-3 strategy, employer structure, worksite, remote-work arrangement, travel, and beneficiary background.

Prevailing wage review

Compare the occupational code, wage level, job duties, minimum requirements, worksite information, and any additional worksites or travel details.

Recruitment planning

Build the publication calendar, define required and additional recruitment steps, verify advertisement language, and establish the employer’s applicant-review procedure.

Applicant-review controls

Confirm that the employer’s normal hiring personnel evaluate U.S. workers and document lawful, job-related reasons without beneficiary control over recruitment.

ETA-9089 consistency review

Compare the draft filing with the prevailing wage record, recruitment evidence, notice of filing, employer attestations, and beneficiary documents.

I-140 readiness review

Evaluate whether the beneficiary met the requirements by the priority date and whether the employer can prepare the required ability-to-pay and classification evidence after certification.

When the PERM Strategy Should Be Rechecked Before Filing

The requirements resemble the beneficiary’s résumé

A rare combination of technologies, licenses, languages, or years of experience should be reviewed for actual minimum requirements and business necessity before recruitment is completed.

The work location changed after the prevailing wage determination

A new office, remote-work location, client site, or reporting arrangement may affect the area of intended employment, wage analysis, notice of filing, and recruitment.

The case depends on EB-2 classification

The offered position itself must require EB-2-level qualifications. A highly educated beneficiary does not convert an EB-3-level job opportunity into an EB-2 position.

The beneficiary gained key experience with the sponsoring employer

Experience gained in a substantially comparable position may not qualify unless the applicable regulatory requirements and exceptions can be satisfied.

The employer recently had layoffs

Layoffs in the area of intended employment involving the occupation or a related occupation may create additional notification, consideration, and documentation obligations.

Frequently Asked Questions About Form ETA-9089

Who files Form ETA-9089?

The U.S. employer files the application, either directly or through an authorized attorney or agent. The employer remains responsible for the accuracy of the filing and the required attestations.

May the foreign worker review or reject U.S. applicants?

No. The beneficiary should not control recruitment or participate in decisions concerning U.S. workers. Applicant review should be performed by the employer’s normal hiring personnel.

How long must the employer keep the PERM file?

The employer must retain the ETA-9089 application and supporting documentation for five years from the filing date.

How long is a certified labor certification valid for an I-140 filing?

A certified permanent labor certification generally has a 180-day validity period. USCIS must receive the labor-certification-based Form I-140 during the period shown on the Final Determination. If the final day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, USCIS accepts the petition with the labor certification on the next business day.

Must the beneficiary meet the job requirements before ETA-9089 is filed?

The beneficiary generally must meet the education, training, experience, license, and other requirements by the priority date, which in a standard PERM case is ordinarily the date DOL accepts ETA-9089 for processing.

Official Sources for Form ETA-9089 and PERM

Review the PERM Record Before ETA-9089 Is Filed

A pre-filing review can identify inconsistencies while the employer still has an opportunity to correct the position, recruitment plan, worksite analysis, or evidence strategy without attempting to repair a filed application.

Discuss an ETA-9089 or PERM Case


Testimonials about our services

Posted on Google Google
Alina Matiukhina profile picture
Alina Matiukhina
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Спасибо Arvian Law Firm за помощь в получении грин карты по EB1a. Подавалась с ними и i140 петицию (получила одобрение) и 485 форму. Адвокат проконсультировал по поводу интервью по 485 форме, какие могут быть вопросы и мы получили одобрение и свои грин карты!
Posted on Google Google
Aida Kolbasina profile picture
Aida Kolbasina
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Мы хотим от всей нашей семьи выразить огромную благодарность нашему адвокату Виталию Малюку и всей его команде. Наверное, ни одна семья не может заранее подготовиться к тому, что ей придется в один момент оставить свой дом и начать жизнь заново в другой стране. Когда мы приехали в США, мы искали не просто адвоката, а человека, который честно оценит наш кейс и будет готов бороться за нас, не предлагая придумывать или добавлять то, чего на самом деле не было. До встречи с Виталием Малюком мы общались с несколькими юристами, и некоторые из них советовали изменить или дополнить нашу историю. Но на первой же встрече Виталий честно сказал нам: «У вас не самый простой и не самый сильный кейс. Но я верю, что он заслуживает того, чтобы за него бороться, и я готов это делать». Именно тогда мы поняли, что нашли своего адвоката. Отдельно хочется отметить, что Виталий Малюк и вся его команда сами родом из Украины, а мы — семья из России. Несмотря на это, они с первой минуты отнеслись к нам с уважением, пониманием и без каких-либо предубеждений. Они сразу взялись помогать нам, потому что для них были важны правда, закон и человеческое отношение. Это дало нам понять, что все наши старания, наша честность и наша позиция были не напрасны. Мы еще раз убедились, что находимся на правильной стороне и что есть люди, которые готовы поддержать тех, кто действительно нуждается в помощи, независимо от того, из какой страны он приехал. На протяжении всего процесса мы чувствовали огромную поддержку не только со стороны Виталия Малюка, но и всей его команды. Отдельные слова благодарности хочется сказать его помощнице Кристине. Она всегда была на связи, терпеливо отвечала на наши вопросы, помогала разобраться в каждом этапе процесса и никогда не оставляла нас без внимания. Такое отношение придавало нам уверенности и спокойствия в очень непростое для нашей семьи время. Мы ни разу не пожалели, что доверили вам наше дело. Более того, мы уже рекомендовали вас многим своим друзьям и знакомым, и знаем, что вы помогаете им с таким же профессионализмом, вниманием и искренним желанием добиться справедливости. От всей души желаем Виталию Малюку, Кристине и всей вашей команде крепкого здоровья, благополучия, профессиональных успехов и всего самого доброго. Спасибо за вашу честность, человечность и огромный труд. Мы никогда не забудем вашу помощь. С глубоким уважением и огромной благодарностью, Семья Колбасиных.
Posted on Google Google
Masha Grygorian profile picture
Masha Grygorian
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Хочу поблагодарить Виталия и его команду от всей души. Мы выиграли кейс на политическое убежище на этапе интервью USCIS. Когда начинали процесс, мы даже подумать не могли, что это возможно! Но оказалось, что если вложить душу в этот процесс, работая с человеком, который знает свое дело - чудеса случаются! И даже в самые сложные иммиграционные времена. Также хочу отменить, что весь процесс от подачи заявления до получения одобрения занял 8 месяцев. Я знаю, что это скорее удача, нежели тенденция, но этим я хочу еще больше подчеркнуть, какую радость мы испытываем от этого события. И вдобавок скажу, что пока другие адвокаты поголовно твердили, что у украинцев нет оснований для прошения убежища, команда Виталия не только взялась за наше дело, а еще и собрала железный кейс. Рекомендую Виталия всем, кто хочет знать, что за его спиной стоит действительно адвокат-профессионал из Американских фильмов :) особенно рекомендую обращаться украинцам: в команде Arvian Group много людей, которые знают специфику вопроса, а это очень важно. Благодарим за исполнение нашей самой заветной мечты 🇺🇸 Желаем Виталию и всей его команде дальнейших успехов, процветания и множества побед!
Posted on Google Google
Vitalii Kalugin profile picture
Vitalii Kalugin
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Всем здравствуйте! Не реклама, а реально честный отзыв о команде «Arvian Law Firm LLC». Наша история. Семья приехала 2 апреля 2022г. Через мексиканскую границу. Получили гум.пароль. Затем перешли на TPS. Я приехал (прилетел в Нью Йорк) в марте 2023 года по U4U. Затем подался на TPS. Почти год ждал разрешительных документов, чтобы в законном порядке выехать из Украины. Ввиду того, что реально некуда возвращаться, решили на законных основаниях остаться в США. Обращались ко многим адвокатам. Оплачивали за консультации. Ушло реально много денег на порой совершенно пустые разговоры, как говорится ни о чем. Помнится ждали апоймента на консультацию с одной очень известной адвокатшей (имени не буду говорить, ибо не буду делать ей антирекламу). И какое же было разочарование, что, уплатив 450 долларов, мы не получили ничего. Ну совсем ничего. Порой казалось, что я знаю больше, чем она. Она просто (прошу прощения за высказывание) ну просто «распедаливала» нас на еще не один десяток долларов. Я, сидя там понимал, что меня «разводят» на деньги и нагло врут. Потом было еще с пять- восемь (точно уже и не помню) так называемых консультаций. За это время, изучил не мало сам законов и правил. И вот когда уже совсем потеряли надежду, обратились за консультацией к Arvian Law Firm LLC. Честно говоря, я уже был практически уверен, что будет очередной развод на деньги, без каких-либо гарантий. Понятно, что гарантий никто не может дать, тем более в это время. НО! Каково было мое удивление, когда я консультировался с Максимом. Как-то сразу и, по существу, начался КОНКРЕТНЫЙ разговор. Я почувствовал, что мы понимаем с полу слова друг друга. Я объяснил, что мне надо абсолютно законный путь легализации. Что-то придумывать, врать и т.д. не хотелось. Не та страна, все станет явным, даже спустя многих лет. Поэтому, проанализировав все законы и шансы, я твердо был убежден, что я подхожу под визу L1A. Да, это не иммиграционная виза, да она на прямую не ведет к грин карте. Но L-1A открывает прямой путь к петиции EB-1C, а та уже может привести к постоянному виду на жительство. Как говорится есть нюанс). Так же я не понимал, что все адвокаты говорят про одни и те же пути легализации. А некоторых порой спрашивал про эту визу, так они вообще ничего не могли ответить, и я понимал, что они по моему мнению, даже не знают о чем я спрашиваю. Так вот. Я точно понимал, что по всем параметрам и законам я подхожу под эту визу. И Максим мне много чего подсказал, в плане какие документы надо собрать, какие нужны, а какие бесполезны. Далее я консультировался с Кристиной. Очень грамотная и конкретная барышня. Даже не смотря, что я с ней, можно сказать поспорил, мы все равно сделали все правильно. Да, было трудно. Порой невыносимо собрать то, что у нас в стране вообще не учитывается, а тут, это важно. Но путем консультаций, переговоров, переписок и т.д., я получил-таки визу. И через неделю пришли документы и моей семье. Огромная Благодарность Алене! Всегда отвечала на все мои письма. Всегда, по существу, были ответы. Кристина консультировала и даже уже не по нашему делу. За что отдельная Благодарность. Если бы Максим тогда, как говорится не зацепил меня своей простотой и откровенностью, то я точно бы не обращался бы ни к кому. Да, забыл сказать. Мы подали все документы. Оплатили за ускоренное рассмотрение дела и нам пришло уведомление о намерении отказать (Notice of Intent to Deny). Я вообще был в шоке. Ну как так-то!? Все документы в наличии. Ничего не придумано, все честно и все отвечает правилам. Но группа адвокатов нас не оставила и поддержала. Нам дали ограниченное время на доказательства. И мы успели собрать еще документы. Так же, когда я прочитал, в какой форме был ответ от адвокатов, офицеру, то, честно говоря, немного даже насторожило, но мне понравилось. Никто не просил офицера, а можно сказать «утыкал носом» офицера, что тот не умеет считать сроки, и у нас все вовремя. Мне понравилась форма ответа. Да, немного дерзко (это ну очень понравилось!) и по фактам. И нам пришло одобрение. Еще раз Благодарю ВСЮ команду Arvian Law Firm LLC! С Уважением!
Posted on Google Google
Katia Makaro profile picture
Katia Makaro
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Arvian Law is an excellent choice for anyone who needs help with immigration. The team is very professional, patient, and clearly experienced – they explain every step of the process in simple language and always respond quickly to questions. They show real care for their clients, prepare cases thoroughly, and fight for the best possible result, which gives a lot of confidence during a very stressful time.
Posted on Google Google
Denis Akulov profile picture
Denis Akulov
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Хотим поблагодарить команду за сопровождение нашего дела по категории EB-1 extraordinary ability. Работа велась профессионально: грамотная структура кейса, внимание к деталям и стабильная коммуникация на протяжении всего процесса. Команда хорошо разбирается в иммиграционном законодательстве и умеет правильно представить профессиональный опыт клиента. В итоге мы получили одобрение, и это главный результат. Рекомендуем как компетентную команду для дел по сложным иммиграционным категориям.
Posted on Google Google
Максим Долгов profile picture
Максим Долгов
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Хочу выразить искреннюю благодарность Arvian Law Firm за помощь в подготовке и подаче документов на визу талантов EB-1. Работа была выполнена профессионально и качественно. Все документы были подготовлены грамотно, и в результате моя петиция была успешно подана и одобрена. Спасибо за проделанную работу, внимательное отношение и профессиональный подход. Могу смело рекомендовать Arvian Law Firm тем, кто рассматривает подачу на визу EB-1.
Posted on Google Google
Andrii Lutskan profile picture
Andrii Lutskan
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Это лучшие профессионалы с которыми нам когда либо приходилось сотрудничать! Сегодня поучил approve по EB1a и до сих пор не могу поверить ! Если с кем и идти на результат то только с ними ❤️


Employment-based immigration visas

CONTACT US

If you are located in the US, please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns you may have. We look forward to helping you.

Arvian Law Firm
California 300 Spectrum Center Dr, Floor 4 Irvine CA 92618
Missouri 100 Chesterfield Business Pkwy, Floor 2 Chesterfield, MO 63001
+1 (213) 838 0095
+1 (314) 530 7575
+1 (213) 649 0001
info@arvianlaw.com

Follow us:

CONSULTATION

Arvian Law Firm LLC

Vitalii Maliuk,

ATTORNEY AT LAW (МО № 73573)

Copyright © Arvian Law Firm LLC 2026