Case Studies
Case of C.A.
C was a student at a prestigious American university — when CBP almost upended his dream. Upon his arrival at the airport with his student visa, CBP accused C of making a misrepresentation in his visa application and permanently barred him under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). After reviewing what happened at the airport and his visa application, we could see that while there were inaccuracies in his application, they were not material to his eligibility for the visa. And so we challenged the CBP decision with a Motion to Reconsider at the airport which had made the decision. After some back-and-forth, CBP recognized the legal error and rescinded the 6Ci decision.
Case of B.N.
B was properly found to have committed a Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) misrepresentation, and so she had no choice but to apply for an I-601 immigrant waiver to join her family in the United States. The extreme hardship factors present in her case were substantial, but by no means a “slam dunk.” We spent a month compiling the evidence, highlighting the extenuating circumstances of her case — the horrors taking place in her home country, her own personal risks, and the danger and tremendous hardship that her family could have if they had to relocate back to the home country. USCIS approved the waiver application without a request for evidence.
Case of R.U.
R had been improperly accused under Section 212(a)(2)(C)(ii) as a family member accruing financial benefit from the proceeds of a drug trafficker during the previous five years. But her family relationship and the lack of benefit did not meet the terms under the statute, and so we challenged the propriety of the decision. After a brief review, the 2Cii finding was removed and she was no longer barred from the United States.
Case of N.C.
N had an extremely unpleasant, potentially lifechanging experience: CBP imposed a permanent bar on him for a controlled substance violation under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). But CBP’s decision was grounded in overzealousness, not the law. We were puzzled by the decision and sought clarification from the chief of the port-of-entry. Seeing that his subordinate had made an improper decision, the chief, on his own initiative, decided to remove the erroneous 2AiII decision.
Case of S.U.
This Section 212(a)(6)(E) accusation came out of the blue — more than two decades after the alleged alien smuggling activity. The activity centered on her husband, and so she was eligible for a “family unity” immigrant waiver. We prepared the I-601 immigrant waiver and supporting documentation. USCIS granted the waiver — without a request for evidence.
Case of H.M.
It was unclear to us why CBP did not give the businessman the Record of Sworn Statement. CBP had given to H the signed Withdrawal of Application for Admission form (I-275) when he had a problem at the border, but not the critical Record of Sworn Statement — the document that memorializes the conversation with the CBP officer. We contacted the port liaison directly, and after a few days, the liaison turned over the Record to us — without having to go through the Freedom of Information Act process, which could have taken several months.
Case of T.J.
T’s wife was applying for a H-4 visa. The problem was that the consul demanded that before considering the issuance of the visa for his wife, T, in valid H-1B status, would need to return to his home country and go through a new visa interview. Pending his return, the consul placed her application into administrative processing — Section 221(g). The case had been complicated by an incident in the past and a previous visa revocation. But the bottom line was that his wife had a right to the dependent visa and there was no legal requirement for T to return to his home country. After we brought this to the attention of consular management and the Department of State, T’s wife received the visa.
Case of F.G.
We write in detail on this site about the lack of a statute of limitations in immigration law, and the consul in F’s home country proved it. 20 years after the incident in which his two siblings had traveled to the US with the help of a coyote, the consul pinned a Section 212(a)(6)(E) alien smuggling charge on the older sibling, who was under 18 at the time of the crossing. After discussing all of the details with F, we helped prepare a declaration and supporting evidence. After a review, consular management removed the 6E finding of inadmissibility.
Case of O.H.
O had made misrepresentations in visa applications and ESTA applications over the years, but finally, his luck ran out. The consul caught up with his misrepresentations, and handed him a permanent bar under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). Undeterred, O tried to apply for a nonimmigrant waiver on his own — but without success. That is when he reached out to us. We helped prepare a nonimmigrant waiver application for him. In preparation for his interview, we reviewed all of the possible issues and problems in his complicated history and conducted a mock interview. After a long, detailed interview, the consul recommended the Section 212(d)(3)(A) nonimmigrant waiver.
Case of A.M.
A had been receiving visas for the past 25 years without problem. But times have changed. Everything is under scrutiny. And so after he was denied a visitor visa under Section 214(b) and re-applied for a visa, his application was placed in 221(g) administrative processing — for 2 years! After we did a deep-dive into his case, he decided to proceed with a writ of mandamus lawsuit against the Department of State and the Embassy. 3 weeks after the filing of the lawsuit, the Embassy contacted him to advise that it was ready to issue the visa and requested him to submit his passport. Shortly thereafter, he received a new visa.