U.S. immigration counsel for accomplished professionals, founders, families, and the organizations that bring them here
Cedar builds evidence-driven immigration cases for accomplished professionals and founders, and advises the employers and families who sponsor them. We shape the record into an argument and consider each filing in light of what may come next.
Review required before publication
Begin with the person whose future is at issue
For professionals, researchers, founders, investors, and family members coming to—or already building a life in—the United States.
For employers, organizations, and families sponsoring a person whose presence in the United States matters.
Every matter moves through statuses, deadlines, dependencies, and decisions. Cedar's role is defined by the engagement agreement. In an employer-sponsored matter, the employer and beneficiary may have different legal interests.
EB-1A, National Interest Waiver, and O-1 cases turn on more than whether evidence exists. They turn on what the evidence proves, how the pieces reinforce one another, which weaknesses must be addressed, and whether the record supports the argument being made.
This work rewards close reading, disciplined selection, and an individual theory of the case. That combination—high-achievement evidentiary work, long employment-based timelines, and category strategy—is Cedar's specialization.
Evidence is not the same as an argument.
Work changes. Companies grow. Evidence becomes stronger or less relevant. Status, family circumstances, and government action alter the decisions available at each point. A good strategy accounts for those relationships rather than treating each filing as an isolated transaction.
This development composite illustrates recurring decisions from more than one matter. It does not describe a single Cedar client or predict an outcome.
Chapter 1 of 5
Your circumstances
Cedar decision points
Government status
Your circumstances
Cedar decision points
Government status
Your circumstances
Cedar decision points
Government status
Your circumstances
Cedar decision points
Government status
Your circumstances
Cedar decision points
Government status
Select a timeline event to inspect the reasoning.
Your circumstances · Completed
Government status · Current
Your circumstances · Completed
Cedar decision points · Completed
Your circumstances · Completed
Your circumstances · Current
Cedar decision points · Current
Government status · Current
Cedar decision points · Contingent
Government status · Contingent
Your circumstances · Completed
Initial employment path
The professional had a viable employment-based route and a record that was still developing.
Government status · Current
Priority date and queue
The earlier filing established a chronology that remained relevant while government-controlled availability and processing continued.
Your circumstances · Completed
Research record develops
Publications, independent use, and responsibility increased, but the relationship between those facts and a different legal standard still required analysis.
Cedar decision points · Completed
Build the record now
The record was developing, but the available evidence did not yet support every inference the alternative theory would require.
Your circumstances · Completed
Independent recognition
Later work and independent recognition changed the relationship among achievements, corroboration, and the argument the record might support.
Your circumstances · Current
Role and objective change
A change in role and longer-term objective made it necessary to review both the evidence and the timing of any alternative filing.
Cedar decision points · Current
Reassess the category
The later evidence and changed objective made a new category analysis appropriate without erasing the earlier chronology.
Government status · Current
Alternative path under review
The composite shows government review continuing on its own clock while other facts and options remain relevant.
Cedar decision points · Contingent
Preserve the earlier priority date
If the applicable rules and facts permit, counsel may evaluate whether the earlier priority date can remain useful alongside a later strategy.
Government status · Contingent
Future branch
A future branch may become available if the facts, law, and government action align. This is not a prediction.
The value of legal judgment should be visible in the reasoning. Cedar publishes selected analyses of evidence, category choice, and decisions that arise over the life of an immigration matter.
evidence
A collection of impressive facts is not yet a legal argument. The work is to show what the evidence establishes, how it connects, and where it remains vulnerable.
By Lea Nehme · Published
category strategy
The same achievement may play a different role in an O-1, EB-1A, or National Interest Waiver analysis because each path asks different legal questions.
By Lea Nehme · Published
Founding attorney
Lea Nehme is an immigration attorney and an immigrant herself. Her practice is grounded in the difference between having strong facts and presenting a legally coherent case.
Meet LeaReview required before publication
Every biographical sentence and admission requires Lea's approval before launch.
Begin with a free screening so Cedar can determine whether the matter fits the firm's practice and whether a paid legal consultation is appropriate. The screening is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
If invited, the paid consultation includes a legal assessment during the meeting, discussion of recommended paths and tradeoffs, and a written follow-up summary. Duration and price will be shown before booking or payment.
Request a free screeningPlease do not send confidential documents or sensitive case details until Cedar confirms representation.
Contact Cedar insteadIntegration unavailable