Case Studies
Case of B.T.
Because of a conviction related to a drug possession case when he was 21, B was inadmissible under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). For years, he was able to obtain a nonimmigrant waiver. But after his most recent visa expired and he reapplied for a new waiver, out of the blue, the consular officer handed him a visa refusal sheet indicating that he was a drug trafficker: Section 212(a)(2)(C)(i). How could that be? During our consultation with B, we did a deep dive into the drug-related incident and came to the conclusion that it could only be viewed as a controlled substance violation, not trafficking. We helped B compose a letter to the Embassy seeking clarification and disputing the refusal. After a couple of days, the Embassy acknowledged its error, removed the 2C entry, and recommended the granting of the waiver for the 2AiII inadmissibility.
Case of P.T.
P is a professional in her home country with a US visa history dating back many years. In early 2019, she received a new US visa and traveled to the US to visit family. Later, during the pandemic, she gave birth in the US at the end of 2020, paying the hospital bills and leaving within a couple of months. But notwithstanding the black-and-white edict of the Trump Birth Tourism Rule that it would only apply to visas issued after January 2020, the consul decided to apply the rule retroactively to P. The consul entered the US “death penalty” against P: finding her permanently inadmissible under the misrepresentation provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). It is not clear if the decision stemmed from discrimination, a personal agenda, or sheer ignorance, but after the preparation of a chronology of events, supporting documentation, and a request to rescind, the Department of State promptly removed the 6Ci permanent bar from P.
Case of F.G.
F is a successful and renowned entrepreneur in his community. He had traveled to Europe and the US on more than 30 occasions over 20 years. But much to his shock, the US Embassy in his home country accused F of “smuggling” his teenage child to the United States 10 years ago, when in fact, his ex-wife had taken their child to the US without his knowledge or permission. The case required the gathering of substantial documentation: through the Freedom of Information Act, we were able to obtain copies of previous visa applications and entry records; with the help of a local lawyer, we were able to obtain pertinent documents from the divorce case. We were then able to present these documents, other evidence, and our request to remove the 212(a)(6)(E) permanent alien smuggling bar to the Embassy and the Department of State for their review. After a protracted review process, the bar was removed.
Case of M.Z.
M’s case went back more than a decade, to a time when CBP did not permit her entry to the US to see her dying American citizen husband. Later, her US citizen daughter petitioned for her immigration. But after the I-130 petition was approved and M applied for her immigrant visa, she was denied under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). Making the situation more dire: there is no immigrant waiver available for parents of US citizens found inadmissible under this section of the law. What was even more puzzling was that after reviewing the results of a FOIA records request and talking to M in great depth, it was not clear exactly what she was being accused of, i.e., what was the misrepresentation? So we contacted the embassy asking for a clarification. In response, the embassy acknowledged that a mistake had been made, and it removed the misrepresentation finding. M then received her IR-5 immigrant visa and was able to join her daughter in the United States.
Case of R.T.
R was a victim of Integra. He fell hook, line, and sinker for the spiel of the representative of Integra, one of the scam Optional Practical Training companies (along with Andwill, AzTech, Wireclass, Finddream). But after a couple of weeks of not receiving any assignments or promised training, R decided to move on. He found a job in his engineering field and his employer sponsored him for his H-1B visa. USCIS issued a Request for Evidence, asking about Integra. After responding to the Request, the petition and his change of status were approved. Years later, his employer submitted an H-1B extension petition to USCIS, and USCIS approved the petition. So when R returned to his home country to visit his family and apply for an H-1B visa, he was shocked to receive a refusal sheet with a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) permanent bar for his association with Integra. He then contacted us. We prepared a request to the Department of Homeland Security Travel Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) system to reopen and reconsider that determination. Shortly thereafter, the consular officer requested his passport; the bar was removed; and R received the H-1B visa.
Case of O.E.
O’s problem is becoming more and more common: not just consular officers in the Department of State make determinations of inadmissibility, but officials at the Department of Homeland Security do as well: USCIS, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. What makes the DHS-source decisions troublesome is 1) individuals often are not aware of the findings until they are outside the US and apply for a visa and 2) DHS does not have an official appeals procedure. In O’s case, he was not aware that he was inadmissible under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i) until he applied for an immigrant, family-based visa to join his US citizen brother in the US. A year after the consul made the denial decision, his US citizen brother contacted us. Only after we inquired to the consulate did it advise that DHS, not the consular officer, made the inadmissibility decision. We then challenged the DHS determination that O’s previous conviction was for a crime of moral turpitude (a driver’s registration violation), and DHS removed the inadmissibility finding. But O was not home-free at that point: the consul withheld the issuance of the visa, calling into question whether the brothers were actually brothers. O then gathered and we provided photographs dating back to the 1970s of the two brothers, as well as other official documents in which the brothers were listed. Shortly after that, the consul finally issued the immigrant visa.
Case of B.C.
B’s situation shows the draconian nature of the 90 Day “Rule” and how far back the consul will look into a person’s visa history. Nearly two decades ago B traveled to the US to visit his sister and friends. During his visit, his sister asked him to help her at a place that she did volunteer work. This information came to light the next time he sought to enter the US, when CBP stopped him. Although CBP sent him home, it did not accuse him of lying about the nature of his visit when he had previously entered. But that did not stop the consul though. After B was refused a visitor’s visa on standard “lack of ties” grounds (214(b)), B’s US citizen daughter applied for his immigration. And it was at that immigrant visa interview that the consul decided to dig into what happened nearly 20 years ago. The consul imposed a permanent bar on B under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i), finding that B had lied to the CBP officer when he arrived: that his true intent was to work with his sister on a B visa, that he did so within 90 days of his arrival, and this was “proof” that he had misrepresented his intention at the airport when he arrived. B’s daughter then contacted us. We then gathered evidence from his visit nearly 20 years ago to show that his intention at the time of his entry was to see his sister and friends; he did not make any misrepresentation when he arrived; and he did not “work.” After a protracted review of our submission, the 6Ci finding was removed and B received the IR-5 immigrant visa.
Case of T.R.
T was another victim of Andwill. He only learned of the problem after he left the US, when he applied for a new H-1B visa and the consul advised him of a DHS-imposed permanent bar under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). The consul began to process a Section 212(d)(3)(A) nonimmigrant waiver for him. But there were two problems: 1) the processing of a nonimmigrant waiver would take more than 6 months and T was not certain that his employer would wait for him; and 2) T had a potential interest in immigrating to the US in the future and the 6Ci bar would be a permanent obstacle: he would require an immigrant waiver and such waivers are granted only in limited circumstances. So T contacted us. Within a week we were able to prepare and submit his challenge to the permanent bar to the Department of Homeland Security. A month later, we were notified of corrective action. We contacted the consulate and a week later it requested his passport and issued the visa. T was able to successfully return to his job and will have the ability to immigrate if he chooses to do so in the future.
Case of U.R.
U made a Freedom of Information Act request with USCIS for her EB-5 files. But instead of turning over all of her files, USCIS only released some of the files. It stated that there were no more files. We knew that was wrong and contacted USCIS FOIA management. After continued resistance, we escalated our complaint. Finally, USCIS turned over all of the FOIA materials — thousands of pages.
Case of N.B.
In an epic E-2 visa case taking place over more than two years during the pandemic with 3 visa interviews in two different countries, N had the misfortune of a “double whammy”. The consulate slapped him with two allegations, each of which resulted in a permanent bar to entry to the United States: a crime of moral turpitude (212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)) and a willful, material misrepresentation (212(a)(6)(C)(i)). The crime of moral turpitude accusation was flimsy because the statute relating to the acquisition of data encompassed behavior that was not a crime of moral turpitude. The misrepresentation accusation related to how his DS-160 was completed in addressing the criminal incident. We challenged both decisions. After the crime of moral turpitude finding was removed, we helped prepare N for the visa interview on the misrepresentation issue. After a long, in-depth interview, the consulate removed the misrepresentation finding and issued the E-2 visa to N, finally enabling him to return to the United States.