没有退党证明，中共党员I-485仍成功获批！新未名律所回复NOID并提交I-601豁免，一个月后迎来批准 Former Communist Party Member's I-485 Approved Without a Party Termination Certificate: NOID Response and I-601 Waiver Lead to Approval Within One Month
新未名律所 ｜ 2026年10月底最新成功案例 ｜ New Weiming Law Group | Late October 2026 Success Story
一句话核心总结（TL;DR）：曾是中共党员、拿不到退党证明，并不必然意味着绿卡无法获批。一位I-140已获批的职业移民申请人，因早年中国共产党党员身份在I-485面试后收到依据INA § 212(a)(3)(D)发出的NOID（拟拒通知），且始终无法取得原单位党组织出具的退党证明或党员身份终止证明。新未名律所于2026年9月提交详细的NOID回复，以非自愿入党例外（(D)(ii)）和党员身份终止逾五年例外（(D)(iii)）为主要依据，以8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)下的替代证据补足证据链，逐项澄清面试记录中的事实争议，并同步提交I-601保护性豁免申请（(D)(iv)特定亲属豁免）作为备用方案。约一个月后，即2026年10月底，I-485与I-601均获批准。
TL;DR (English): Being a former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) member without a Party withdrawal certificate does not necessarily mean a green card cannot be approved. An employment-based applicant with an approved I-140 received a NOID after the I-485 interview under INA § 212(a)(3)(D) due to past CCP membership, and never obtained a Party withdrawal or membership termination certificate from the Party branch at the former school or employer in China. In September 2026, New Weiming Law Group filed a detailed NOID response relying primarily on the involuntary membership exception ((D)(ii)) and the exception for Party membership terminated more than five years earlier ((D)(iii)), built a full evidentiary record with secondary evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2), rebutted factual disputes in the interview record, and concurrently filed a protective I-601 waiver (the (D)(iv) specific-relative waiver). About one month later, in late October 2026, both the I-485 and the I-601 were approved.
新未名律所立足美国首都华盛顿地区，长期为大华府DMV地区、马里兰(Maryland)、弗吉尼亚(Virginia)及全美的华人、留学生、博士后及高科技/科研人员办理EB-1A、NIW国家利益豁免、PERM、I-140/I-485、RFE/NOID回复及I-601豁免等事务。在美国绿卡申请中，中共党员身份一直是部分中国申请人面临的棘手法律问题。很多人在美国学习、工作和生活多年，早已不参加组织生活、不交党费，却拿不到原单位党组织出具的退党证明。如何向USCIS证明过去的党员身份不应阻碍绿卡申请，往往决定案件成败。2026年10月底，新未名律所迎来这样一宗复杂党员绿卡案件的批准喜讯。
New Weiming Law Group is based in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area and represents Chinese nationals, international students, postdocs, and STEM professionals in the DMV region, Maryland, Virginia, and nationwide in EB-1A, NIW, PERM, I-140/I-485, RFE/NOID responses, and I-601 waivers. Past Chinese Communist Party membership has long been a difficult legal issue for some Chinese green card applicants. Many have lived in the U.S. for years, stopped attending Party activities and paying Party dues long ago, yet cannot obtain a withdrawal certificate from their former Party branch. Proving to USCIS that past Party membership should not bar a green card is often decisive. In late October 2026, New Weiming Law Group secured approval in exactly such a case.
1. I-140已获批，为什么党员申请人的I-485仍收到NOID？
With an Approved I-140, Why Did a Former CCP Member's I-485 Still Receive a NOID?
因为I-140获批不代表I-485一定获批。本案申请人长期在美国合法从事专业研究，凭借专业资历获得I-140批准后提交I-485。USCIS在I-485阶段除审核移民类别和身份调整条件外，还要审查是否存在法定不可入境性（Inadmissibility）。申请人在I-485中如实披露了早年的中共党员身份，面试后USCIS发出NOID，认为该党员身份可能触发INA § 212(a)(3)(D)关于共产党或其他极权主义政党成员的不可入境条款。NOID集中于党员身份问题，并未就欺诈、刑事犯罪或其他美国安全问题提出独立指控，但移民局对当年入党的性质、面试陈述的准确性以及党员身份是否已终止存有疑虑。申请人收到NOID后才联系新未名律所（此前I-140和I-485并非本所准备）。
Because an approved I-140 does not guarantee an approved I-485. The applicant, a long-time lawful U.S. resident in professional research, obtained I-140 approval and then filed an I-485. At the I-485 stage, USCIS reviews not only the category and adjustment eligibility but also statutory inadmissibility. The applicant truthfully disclosed past CCP membership on the I-485; after the interview, USCIS issued a NOID asserting that the membership might trigger inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(3)(D), which covers members of the Communist or any other totalitarian party. The NOID focused on Party membership and raised no independent allegation of fraud, criminality, or other security concerns, but questioned how the applicant joined the Party, the accuracy of interview statements, and whether membership had ended. The applicant contacted New Weiming Law Group only after receiving the NOID (our firm did not prepare the earlier I-140 or I-485).
2. 最大难点是什么？十多年不交党费，为何仍难以证明已退党？
What Was the Main Difficulty? Why Was a Decade Without Paying Party Dues Still Hard to Prove?
最大难点是申请人从始至终没有取得原单位党组织出具的退党证明或党员身份终止证明。根据宣誓声明，申请人在大学期间受到学校相关人员持续施压要求入党，多次拒绝后，因担心影响毕业、推荐和职业发展并可能连累家人，才在压力下签署了入党申请书；申请人并不认同共产主义理念，从未担任党内职务，也没有从事党务管理、宣传或发展党员等工作。赴美后完全停止与党组织的联系，不参加组织生活、不缴纳党费、不接受党组织安排。实际联系至迟于20xx年停止，此前I-485表格披露的较晚结束日期为20yy年初；无论按哪个时间点，到20zz年提交I-485时均已超过五年。但长期不交党费、不过组织生活，与能否向USCIS证明党员身份已终止，是两个需要分别分析的问题。20ww年前后，原党组织因长期无法联系申请人、党费未缴，将部分原有入党材料退回；申请人收到NOID后又再次书面向原党组织申请退党证明，并请求对方即使无法出具也书面说明原因及是否仍保存党员档案，但截至提交回复时仍未获得任何盖章文件。
The main difficulty was that the applicant never obtained a Party withdrawal or membership termination certificate from the former Party branch. According to the sworn declaration, during university the applicant faced sustained pressure from school personnel to join the CCP, refused several times, and signed the Party application only out of concern for graduation, recommendations, career prospects, and possible consequences for family; the applicant never shared Communist ideology, never held a Party post, and never performed Party administration, propaganda, or recruitment work. After coming to the U.S., all contact with the Party organization stopped: no Party meetings, no Party dues, no assignments. Actual contact ended no later than 20xx; the earlier I-485 disclosed a later end date in early 20yy; under either date, more than five years had passed by the 20zz I-485 filing. But years without Party dues or activities and proving termination of Party membership to USCIS are two separate questions. Around 20ww, the former Party branch returned some of the applicant's original Party application materials because of lost contact and unpaid dues; after the NOID, the applicant again requested a withdrawal certificate in writing, asking that the branch at least explain in writing if it could not issue one and whether it still held the Party file, but received no stamped document before the response was filed.
3. 没有退党证明，律师采用了哪些法律论证路径？
Without a Party Withdrawal Certificate, What Legal Arguments Did Counsel Use?
新未名律所没有把全部希望寄托在一份拿不到的退党证明上，而是深入分析INA § 212(a)(3)(D)及USCIS审理政策，提出三条相互独立、彼此补充的论证路径，并以I-601作为备用救济。
New Weiming Law Group did not stake everything on an unobtainable Party withdrawal certificate. Instead, it analyzed INA § 212(a)(3)(D) and USCIS policy, presented three independent but complementary lines of argument, and added an I-601 as alternative relief.
⚖️ 三条法律论证路径 / Three Lines of Legal Argument
- ① 非自愿入党例外（INA § 212(a)(3)(D)(ii)）：不能仅因签署过入党申请书就认定是自由自愿的选择。应审查申请人是否主动要求入党、是否明确拒绝过、压力来自何种有实际管理权的人员、拒绝的实际后果、是否认同共产主义理念及入党后是否有实质参与。律师结合Matter of Hajdu、Matter of Rusin等判例及USCIS政策进行论证。需要说明：大学期间入党、一般性社会压力或不积极过组织生活，本身并不自动构成法律意义上的"非自愿"，关键在于具体经历和可信的宣誓证据。
Involuntary membership exception (INA § 212(a)(3)(D)(ii)): Signing a Party application does not automatically prove a free, voluntary choice. Relevant questions include whether the applicant sought to join, refused explicitly, who with real authority applied pressure, what refusal would have cost, whether the applicant shared Communist ideology, and whether there was substantive participation. Counsel relied on Matter of Hajdu, Matter of Rusin, and USCIS policy. Joining the CCP in college, general social pressure, or inactivity alone does not automatically establish legal involuntariness; specific facts and credible sworn evidence are essential. - ② 党员身份终止逾五年例外（INA § 212(a)(3)(D)(iii)）：对共产党等政党的历史党员身份，法律规定通常需在申请前至少五年终止，并满足其他条件。律师区分"停止交党费、停止过组织生活的时间"与"依据党章及相关规定主张的党员身份终止时间"，解释此前表格中较晚的日期；这并不意味着党组织内部规则自动决定美国移民法下的结果，而是为USCIS评估提供具体依据。即使采用较晚的20yy年，距I-485提交仍超过五年。律师同时强调，满足时间要求还不够，还需证明党员身份实际终止且申请人不构成美国安全威胁；长期在美居住、持续从事专业工作、无任何继续参与党组织活动的记录，均与其主张相互印证。
Terminated-membership exception (INA § 212(a)(3)(D)(iii)): For past Communist Party membership, the statute generally requires termination at least five years before application, among other conditions. Counsel distinguished the date Party dues and activities stopped from the termination date asserted under the Party constitution and rules, explaining the later date in prior forms; Party rules do not automatically dictate the U.S. legal outcome but give USCIS a concrete basis for evaluation. Even using the later 20yy date, more than five years had passed. Timing alone is insufficient; actual termination and no threat to U.S. security must also be shown, corroborated by long U.S. residence, continuous professional work, and no record of continued Party activity. - ③ 以替代证据建立完整证据链（8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)）：主要证据不存在或无法取得时，可考虑次要证据及宣誓声明，并需解释主要文件无法取得的原因。律师将详细宣誓声明、早前I-485中对党员身份的如实披露、赴美后的生活工作经历、20ww年入党材料被退回的经过、2026年9月再次申请退党证明的书面记录相互串联，并参考了移民局相关行政决定的分析思路。这些决定不是约束性先例，但对事实相似的案件具有参考价值。核心不是用别的文件冒充退党证明，而是在承认没有正式证明的前提下，以可信替代证据和法律依据回应质疑；退党申请书只能证明曾提出申请，不能等同于党组织已确认退党。
Secondary evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2): When primary evidence is unavailable, secondary evidence and affidavits may be considered, with an explanation of unavailability. Counsel linked the detailed declaration, truthful prior I-485 disclosure of Party membership, U.S. life and work history, the 20ww return of Party application materials, and the September 2026 written request for a withdrawal certificate, drawing on the reasoning of relevant administrative decisions, which are not binding but offer useful guidance for cases with similar facts. The point was not to substitute another document for a withdrawal certificate, but to openly acknowledge its absence and respond with credible secondary evidence and law; a withdrawal request proves only that a request was made, not that the Party confirmed the withdrawal.
4. 移民局称申请人"自愿入党"，如何回应面试记录的事实争议？
USCIS Claimed the Applicant Joined the Party Voluntarily: How Did Counsel Address the Interview Record?
NOID声称申请人在面试中表示自愿入党并认同共产主义理念，申请人明确提出异议。根据补充声明，申请人在面试中表达的是受外部压力入党、并非真正自愿，从未表示认同共产主义理念；面试时还曾向移民官提交关于在压力下入党的书面解释，面试准备的简要书面记录亦涉及"非自愿"入党的内容。律师在回复中详细梳理面试经过，请USCIS结合原有宣誓声明、面试相关记录和补充解释重新审视完整事实，并指出NOID中一处可客观核对的年龄计算差异，说明有必要核实面试记录，而不能仅依赖简要概述作出判断。若USCIS误解当年入党动机，将直接影响非自愿例外的适用。面对与事实不符的面试记录，应依据真实的同期记录和证据具体说明，而不能简单否认或随意改变此前陈述。
The NOID stated that the applicant described joining the CCP voluntarily and sharing Communist ideology at the interview; the applicant expressly disputed this. Per the supplemental declaration, the applicant said joining resulted from external pressure, was not truly voluntary, and never claimed agreement with Communist ideology; the applicant had also given the officer a written explanation of joining under pressure, and brief interview notes referenced "involuntary" joining. Counsel reconstructed the interview, asked USCIS to review the full record, and pointed out an objectively verifiable age-calculation discrepancy in the NOID, showing the need to verify the record rather than rely on a brief summary. A misunderstanding of motive would directly affect the involuntary-membership exception. When an interview record conflicts with the facts, respond specifically with genuine contemporaneous records and evidence, never by simply denying or changing earlier statements.
5. 已主张法定例外，党员申请人为什么还要提交I-601豁免？
Why Should a Former Party Member File an I-601 Waiver When Already Claiming Statutory Exceptions?
提交I-601不代表申请人承认因党员身份而不可入境，而是保护性、备用性申请（protective and alternative filing）。律师首先请求USCIS认定申请人符合(D)(ii)或(D)(iii)法定例外；若USCIS持不同意见，再请求依据INA § 212(a)(3)(D)(iv)特定亲属豁免审查。该条款允许在满足法定亲属关系、不构成美国安全威胁等条件时，基于人道主义、家庭团聚或公共利益酌情豁免党员身份带来的不可入境性。特别需要强调，(D)(iv)党员豁免并不以证明Extreme Hardship（极端困难）为统一法定门槛，不能因为同为I-601表格，就把不同法条的亲属范围、困难标准和酌情因素混为一谈。
Filing an I-601 does not concede inadmissibility based on Party membership; it was a protective and alternative filing. Counsel first asked USCIS to find the applicant within the (D)(ii) or (D)(iii) exceptions and, only if USCIS disagreed, to consider the INA § 212(a)(3)(D)(iv) specific-relative waiver. That provision permits a discretionary waiver of Party-membership inadmissibility for humanitarian, family-unity, or public-interest reasons where the qualifying relationship exists and the applicant poses no threat to U.S. security. Importantly, the (D)(iv) Party-membership waiver does not impose a uniform Extreme Hardship threshold; sharing the same I-601 form does not mean different provisions share the same standards.
| I-601论证要素 / Waiver Element | 本案证据与论证 / Evidence and Argument |
|---|---|
| 合格的美国公民家庭成员 Qualifying U.S. citizen relative |
提交家庭关系证明及亲属的美国公民身份文件，证明具备法定亲属基础 Relationship documents and proof of the relative's U.S. citizenship established the statutory basis |
| 人道主义与家庭团聚 Humanitarian and family unity |
申请人承担重要的家庭照顾和经济支持责任；被迫离美将导致家庭长期分离，影响子女照顾、成长环境和家庭经济；随行离美亦面临生活、教育、医疗等重大调整 The applicant provides essential caregiving and financial support; forced departure would separate the family and affect children's care, upbringing, and finances, while relocating would require major changes in life, education, and healthcare |
| 公共利益与职业贡献 Public interest and professional contribution |
长期合法在美从事专业研究，提交移民批准记录、工作经历等文件。I-140获批不能自动证明符合豁免条件，但可作为专业背景的支持证据 Long lawful research career in the U.S., supported by approval notices and employment records. I-140 approval does not itself satisfy waiver requirements but supports professional background |
| 不构成美国安全威胁 No threat to U.S. security |
早年名义性的普通党员经历不涉及党内领导职务、安全事务或其他涉及美国安全的活动，应与其在美长期实际生活工作分别审视 The nominal, rank-and-file Party membership involved no Party leadership, security affairs, or activities implicating U.S. security, and should be assessed separately from long-term U.S. life and work |
6. 从提交NOID回复到绿卡获批用了多久？
How Long Did It Take From the NOID Response to Green Card Approval?
约一个月。USCIS于2026年8月发出NOID，回复期限为2026年9月。新未名律所迅速梳理案件记录、研究适用法律，于9月在期限内提交了I-485 NOID回复法律陈述和I-601豁免法律陈述。两套文件各有明确目标：NOID回复论证非自愿入党及党员身份终止的法定例外，并处理面试记录争议和退党证明缺失；I-601则在USCIS认为仍需豁免时，从亲属资格、人道主义、家庭团聚、公共利益和安全方面请求有利的酌情决定。2026年10月底，I-485与I-601均获批准。整个回复过程中申请人始终未取得退党证明。
About one month. USCIS issued the NOID in August 2026 with a September 2026 deadline. New Weiming Law Group reviewed the record, researched the law, and timely filed both an I-485 NOID response brief and an I-601 waiver brief in September. The NOID response argued the involuntary-membership and terminated-membership exceptions and addressed the interview dispute and missing withdrawal certificate; the I-601 sought favorable discretion, if still needed, based on the qualifying relative, humanitarian factors, family unity, public interest, and security. In late October 2026, both the I-485 and I-601 were approved, even though no Party withdrawal certificate was ever obtained.
| 时间 / Date | 关键事件 / Key Event |
|---|---|
| 此前 / Earlier | I-140获批；提交I-485并如实披露中共党员身份 I-140 approved; I-485 filed with truthful disclosure of CCP membership |
| 2026年8月 | I-485面试后USCIS依据INA § 212(a)(3)(D)发出NOID USCIS issued a NOID under INA § 212(a)(3)(D) after the interview |
| 2026年9月 | 申请人再次书面向原党组织申请退党证明；新未名律所在期限内提交NOID回复及I-601保护性豁免 Applicant renewed written request to the former Party branch; firm timely filed NOID response and protective I-601 |
| 2026年10月底 | I-485绿卡身份调整获批，I-601豁免获批 I-485 adjustment approved; I-601 waiver approved |
7. 拿不到退党证明的党员申请人，需要注意什么？
What Should Former Party Members Without a Withdrawal Certificate Keep in Mind?
曾是中共党员、正在申请绿卡或已收到NOID的人士，应重点把握以下七点。
Former CCP members applying for a green card or facing a NOID should focus on these seven points.
| # | 启示 / Lesson |
|---|---|
| ① | 如实披露党员身份。I-485问的是"是否曾经"加入共产党，不能因多年不交党费就自行认定无需披露或回答No；隐瞒或不实陈述可能产生比党员身份本身更严重的法律问题。 Disclose Party membership truthfully. The I-485 asks whether you have ever been a member; years without dues do not justify answering No. Concealment or misstatement can be more serious than the membership itself. |
| ② | 区分"不交党费、不过组织生活"与"法律意义上的退党"。准确整理时间线，不要把停止活动日期、依党章的身份终止日期和取得证明的日期混为一谈；日期有差异应提供有证据支持的解释。 Distinguish inactivity from legal termination. Separate the date Party activities and dues stopped, the termination date under Party rules, and any certificate date; explain discrepancies with evidence. |
| ③ | 退党证明很重要，但不是唯一证据。拿不到时，保存向原党组织索取的记录、说明原因，并视情况提供宣誓声明、与党组织的往来记录、第三方知情声明、出入境及长期居住记录、工作学习材料和党章相关规定的可靠资料。各文件的证明作用不能夸大。 A withdrawal certificate matters but is not the only evidence. If unavailable, keep request records, explain why, and consider declarations, correspondence with the Party branch, third-party affidavits, travel and residence records, work and study records, and reliable materials on Party rules. Never overstate what a document proves. |
| ④ | 认真准备入党动机和实际参与的声明。仅说"学校要求入党"或"不信共产主义"通常不够，应具体说明压力来源、是否拒绝、拒绝后果及入党后的实际活动，避免模板化和前后不一。 Prepare a detailed declaration on why you joined and what you did. "The school required it" is usually insufficient; specify the source of pressure, refusals, consequences, and actual Party activities, avoiding templates and inconsistencies. |
| ⑤ | 收到NOID务必注意期限。NOID不是正式拒绝，但意味着USCIS已提出可能导致拒绝的实质问题；不要错过截止日期，也不要在不了解法律问题时随意提交简短说明。 Mind the NOID deadline. A NOID is not a denial but signals substantive grounds for one; never miss the deadline or submit a brief explanation without understanding the legal issues. |
| ⑥ | 党员I-601豁免是否适用，要看具体法条和家庭关系。并非所有党员都需要或都能申请同一种豁免；不要误以为所有豁免都要求Extreme Hardship，或有美国公民亲属就自动获批。 I-601 eligibility depends on the provision and family ties. Not every former Party member needs or qualifies for the same waiver; not all waivers require Extreme Hardship, and a U.S. citizen relative does not guarantee approval. |
| ⑦ | 主要论点与备用方案并行。在坚持法定例外的同时提交独立的备用豁免，可降低单一论点不被接受的风险；是否适合同时提出，应由律师结合个案判断。 Pair the primary argument with a backup. Asserting statutory exceptions while filing an alternative waiver reduces reliance on a single argument; counsel should decide case by case. |
8. 新未名律所可以为中共党员绿卡案件提供哪些帮助？
How Can New Weiming Law Group Help Former CCP Members With Green Card Cases?
曾是中共党员，不必然意味着无法获得美国绿卡；拿不到退党证明，也不应在未经全面法律分析前就被等同于无解。关键在于审查入党的原因、实际参与程度、党员身份是否及何时终止、是否满足法定例外，以及是否存在可独立申请的豁免。新未名律所可根据具体事实提供个案评估及法律服务：
Past CCP membership does not necessarily bar a U.S. green card, and lacking a Party withdrawal certificate should not be treated as hopeless before a full legal analysis. What matters is why the applicant joined, how much participation occurred, whether and when membership ended, whether a statutory exception applies, and whether an independent waiver is available. New Weiming Law Group offers case-specific evaluation and representation for:
- 曾是中共党员，担心影响I-485绿卡申请
Former CCP members concerned about their I-485 - I-140职业移民（EB-1A、NIW、EB-2/3 PERM）、I-130亲属移民或其他类别已获批，却在身份调整阶段遇到党员身份审查
Approved I-140 (EB-1A, NIW, EB-2/3 PERM), I-130, or other petitions facing Party-membership review at adjustment - 收到USCIS关于党员身份的RFE或NOID
RFEs or NOIDs concerning Party membership - 多年不交党费、不过组织生活，但拿不到退党证明或党员身份终止证明
Years without Party dues or activities but no withdrawal or termination certificate - 评估INA § 212(a)(3)(D)下的非自愿入党、党员身份终止等法定例外
Evaluating involuntary-membership and terminated-membership exceptions under INA § 212(a)(3)(D) - 评估党员I-601不可入境性豁免、家庭团聚及公共利益证据
Assessing Party-membership I-601 waivers and family-unity and public-interest evidence - 因党员身份I-485已被拒，评估Motion to Reopen、Motion to Reconsider或其他救济
I-485 denied over Party membership, requiring evaluation of motions to reopen or reconsider or other remedies
💡 没有原单位党组织或组织部门出具的退党证明，依然可以依法争取绿卡！理解自己面临什么法律障碍，比盲目搜集材料更重要；准确识别关键事实、适用法律和证据缺口，是制定有效方案的基础。
Even without a withdrawal certificate from your former Party branch or Party organization department, you can still lawfully pursue a green card. Understanding the legal obstacle matters more than gathering documents blindly; identifying key facts, applicable law, and evidentiary gaps is the foundation of an effective strategy.
中共党员绿卡问题往往没有一份文件或一个公式就能解决。作为靠谱华人移民律师团队，新未名律所将继续以专业、严谨、负责的态度，为申请人分析INA § 212(a)(3)(D)党员不可入境性、NOID与RFE回复、I-601党员豁免及I-485被拒后的救济，制定符合个案事实的策略，努力争取有利结果。欢迎联系我们获取免费评估（Free Evaluation）。新未名律所在美国首都华盛顿地区、大华府DMV地区、马里兰(Maryland)和弗吉尼亚(Virginia)为华人、留学生、博士后及高科技/科研人员提供全方位移民法律服务。
Communist Party membership issues in green card cases rarely yield to a single document or formula. As experienced, reliable immigration attorneys, New Weiming Law Group will continue to analyze INA § 212(a)(3)(D) Party-membership inadmissibility, NOID and RFE responses, Party-membership I-601 waivers, and post-denial I-485 remedies with professionalism and rigor. Contact us for a Free Evaluation. New Weiming Law Group serves the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, the DMV region, Maryland, and Virginia, providing comprehensive immigration legal services for Chinese nationals, international students, postdocs, and STEM professionals.
关于新未名律所 / About New Weiming Law Group
新未名律所（New Weiming Law Group）成立于2009年，立足美国首都华盛顿地区，服务大华府DMV地区、马里兰(Maryland)和弗吉尼亚(Virginia)及全美的华人、留学生、博士后及高科技/科研人员。
Founded in 2009, New Weiming Law Group is based in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area and serves Chinese nationals, international students, postdocs, and STEM professionals in the DMV region, Maryland, Virginia, and nationwide.
律所精英合伙人团队均拥有美国顶级法学院法学博士（J.D.）学位，及名校理工科博士（Ph.D.）学位和多年科研经验。结合体系内美国移民律师协会（AILA）成员的专业视野与超过17年的风控博弈及一线护航经历，提供免费评估 Free Evaluation。
Our partners hold J.D. degrees from leading U.S. law schools as well as Ph.D. degrees in STEM fields from top universities, with years of research experience. Combining the professional perspective of AILA members with more than 17 years of front-line risk management and case advocacy, we provide a Free Evaluation.
官网 / Website：www.nwmlaw.com
邮箱 / Email：info@nwmlaw.com
关于"新未名"名称及机构关系的澄清说明
美国新未名律师事务所（New Weiming Law Group, PLLC）系在美国依法设立并执业的律师事务所，从2009年创立至今，已经帮助上万申请人取得了美国绿卡、签证和各类移民申请批准。本所在中国大陆没有设立任何分所、分支机构、办事处、代表处或其他经营机构。
对于在中国境内注册或者经营、名称中含有"新未名"字样的出国服务、移民服务、留学服务、中介、咨询或其他机构，本所特此说明：这些机构不是美国新未名律师事务所的中国分所、分支机构或办事处，与本所不存在隶属、控股、加盟、合伙、共同经营或授权代理关系。
如有任何个人或机构声称其为美国新未名律师事务所在中国的分所、办公室、代表处、独家代理或授权机构，请直接发信向美国新未名律师事务所核实。
核实邮箱 / Verification Email：info@nwmlaw.com
美国新未名律师事务所
New Weiming Law Group, PLLC
Clarification Regarding the "New Weiming" Name and Institutional Relationships (English Translation)
New Weiming Law Group, PLLC is a law firm lawfully established and practicing in the United States. Since its founding in 2009, it has helped tens of thousands of applicants obtain approvals for U.S. green cards, visas, and other immigration applications. The firm has not established any branch office, subsidiary, office, representative office, or other business establishment in mainland China.
With respect to overseas services, immigration services, study-abroad services, agencies, consultancies, or other organizations registered or operating in China whose names contain the words "新未名" (New Weiming), the firm hereby states: these organizations are not branches, subsidiaries, or offices of New Weiming Law Group in China, and have no affiliation, controlling interest, franchise, partnership, joint operation, or authorized agency relationship with the firm.
If any individual or organization claims to be a branch, office, representative office, exclusive agent, or authorized entity of New Weiming Law Group in China, please verify directly with New Weiming Law Group by email.
New Weiming Law Group, PLLC
免责声明：本文依据经过匿名化处理的新未名律所2026年10月绿卡获批实际案件材料撰写，仅用于介绍案例及美国移民法律相关知识，不构成对任何个案的法律意见或批准保证。不同申请人的事实、证据、移民类别及法律条件可能存在重大差异。所有申请均应以USCIS的正式决定及具体适用法律为准。
Disclaimer: This article is based on anonymized materials from an actual New Weiming Law Group green card approval in October 2026 and is provided solely to describe the case and general U.S. immigration law. It does not constitute legal advice for any individual case or a guarantee of approval. Facts, evidence, immigration categories, and legal conditions may differ significantly among applicants. All applications are governed by USCIS's official decisions and the specific applicable law.
