Blog

It doesn’t make sense. Why is the anti-immigrant President forcing people who just want to visit the US to immigrate?  This is one of the bizarre consequences of draconian visa policies and the “visa is a privilege, not a right” mantra regularly voiced by Secretary of State Rubio. Consular officers at embassies and consulates around the world have weaponized Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny B1/B2 visitor visas for any reason under the sun: a perceived lack of ties, nationality, interview deficiencies, having a relative in the US, questions about plans in the US. As can be seen in our recently-published update to our article on 214(b), by our count, there are more than 40 different reasons – many of them pretexts and outright bogus - consuls are denying nonimmigrant visa applicants.  And because 214(b) does not apply to immigrant visa cases and there is limited discretion for consuls to deny immigrant visas, it is unlikely that the consul will be able to refuse legitimate immigrant visa applications from those same individuals.

A relatively obscure ground of inadmissibility—Section 212(a)(6)(B), failure to attend a removal proceeding—is starting to surface more frequently in immigrant visa adjudications. Historically, this provision has been rarely applied. In 2023 and 2024, there were fewer than 100 such findings each year. While official statistics for 2025 are not yet available, visa applicants are increasingly encountering this refusal, suggesting a meaningful shift in adjudication patterns. As with other “flavor of the month” refusals seen during the Trump administration, this trend underscores the importance of reassessing risk before departing the United States for consular processing.

At its core, Section 212(a)(6)(B) imposes a five-year bar to admissibility on individuals who, without reasonable cause, fail to attend a scheduled removal proceeding and then depart the United States. The consequences can be severe for intending immigrants who leave the country expecting a routine visa issuance abroad. This is particularly relevant for applicants who have obtained approval of an unlawful presence waiver (Form I-601A) and assume that the immigrant visa process is a formality. As discussed in a prior blog, departing the United States can expose applicants to new and sometimes unexpected inadmissibility findings, including not only misrepresentation under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) through application of the Department of State’s 90 Day Rule, but also failure-to-appear findings under Section 212(a)(6)(B). Worse, there is no immigration waiver for a Section 212(a)(6)(B) decision, i.e, the 5 years is counted from the date of departure from the US and must expire before becoming eligible for the visa.  The result can be a sudden and disruptive bar that derails lives.

The numbers are depressing.  The United States used to be a magnet for international students.  But now, the Trump Administration is discouraging, deterring, and repelling students from across the world with its student-adverse policies. The number of new enrollments and visa issuances is down from 17-36%.  It is not only the students that are severely impacted, but the American universities and colleges as well.  In light of these Trump-initiated policies, this felt like a good time to update our article on student visa denials. 

To highlight some of the trends and problems that we have seen over the past year, we have just published an article citing to the 44 reasons for a student visa denial.  The underlying law, regulations, and Department of State guidance to consular officers remains, for the most part, unchanged. But what has changed is the interpretation and implementation at US embassies and consulates around the world.

There is a pattern we see almost every day. Someone reaches out after a visa cancellation, an expedited removal, or a misrepresentation finding, and instead of engaging in a proper consultation, they try to “test the waters.” They ask if we can help, hint at their situation, or float a vague question hoping for a quick answer. Immigration law—especially at the border or consular level—is not a guessing game. These types of cases are complicated, carry long-term consequences and are fact-intensive, where the smallest detail can change the entire legal strategy.

One of the most common scenarios is the person who calls or writes something like: “My visa was cancelled at the airport and I was given expedited removal. Can you help?” That is the entirety of the information provided. No sworn statement, no timeline, no explanation of what was said to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, no indication of whether there was a finding under INA Section 212(a)(6)(C) or INA Section 212(a)(7)(A). The expectation, however, is that we can immediately assess the case. We cannot. That is precisely why we conduct 60–75 minute consultations—to reconstruct what actually happened, identify legal issues, and determine viable strategies. Anything less is not serious legal work.

One of the most dangerous misconceptions in U.S. immigration law is the belief that time heals everything. It does not—especially when it comes to inadmissibility. We routinely see individuals who assume that a few years—or even decades—will somehow erase a prior finding. But when the issue involves misrepresentation under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), the reality is stark: permanent means permanent. There is no expiration date, no quiet forgiveness, and—perhaps most importantly—no statute of limitations on when you can challenge the finding. That cuts both ways. While it allows challenges decades later, it also means the government’s finding continues to follow you indefinitely unless it is affirmatively addressed.

While we have had some success challenging findings of inadmissibility 20 or more years old, it is very difficult. For example, we were recently contacted by an individual who had a misrepresentation finding dating back more than 20 years because he had apparently presented a bogus financial statement given to him by a visa agent. For years, this did not seem to matter much. The client was able to obtain a nonimmigrant waiver under INA § 212(d)(3), allowing him to travel to the United States despite the finding. Like many applicants in this situation, he treated the inadmissibility as a manageable inconvenience rather than a critical legal problem.