Blog

The US used to be a welcoming country, opening its arms to tourists, business visitors, investors, executives, managers, creatives, and professionals such as scientists, mathematicians, and IT and business specialists. Not anymore. The mantra of this Administration? “A visa is a privilege, not a right.” But while each country of course has the right to determine who may enter, each country also has laws to define who may enter and who may not. Those immigration laws are to be complied with, not ignored, twisted, and run over by the whims and caprices of an Administration Run Amok.

In a previous post, we explored how poor documentation and weak evidence can sink K-1 fiancé and I-130 spousal visa cases. But even couples who believe they’ve submitted everything required often get blindsided during the visa interview—especially when their answers don’t line up. Inconsistent testimony is one of the most common reasons a consular officer begins to suspect fraud.

It may seem like a small thing to forget a date or get nervous in front of an officer, but when a petitioner says they met at a friend’s party in Lagos in January and the beneficiary claims they met on a dating app in May, this contradiction immediately casts doubt on the relationship. The “how we met” story is foundational. If the couple can’t agree on something so basic, the officer may start to suspect that the relationship is more transactional than romantic.

Another key issue is the first in-person meeting. This is especially critical in K-1 visa cases, where U.S. immigration law requires the couple to have met physically within the past two years. If the petitioner claims they met in 2022 and the beneficiary says 2023, or if there’s no proof like passport stamps, hotel receipts, or photos to back it up, the officer may suspect misrepresentation. In serious cases, this could lead to a refusal under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i), a permanent ground of inadmissibility for fraud.

For years, applicants seeking nonimmigrant waivers under section 212(d)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act could rely on one reassuring truth: once a waiver was granted, renewing it in the future was usually a formality. As long as the applicant abided by the terms of the visa—no unlawful work, no overstaying, no protracted stays, no criminal violations— the U.S. Department of State (DOS) would routinely recommend approval of subsequent waivers without revisiting the entire case from scratch.

That changed in February.

In a quiet but significant policy shift, the Department of State announced that it will no longer defer to prior nonimmigrant waiver approvals when evaluating new applications after the original waiver expires (typically after five years). In plain terms: even if you were approved before and abided by the terms and conditions of the visa, your next waiver request will be treated as a brand-new application. There is no longer any presumption of consistency or continuity.

If you are a Canadian with a criminal record and planning to enter the United States, understanding whether your conviction is classified as a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT) is essential. A CIMT can make you inadmissible to the U.S. and may require you to obtain a waiver to cross the border.

A CIMT typically involves conduct that is considered inherently immoral or deceitful. These offenses may include crimes involving theft, fraud, or acts of violence. The U.S. Department of State has a list of crimes it considers to be CIMTs and those it does not (you can view the list here).

Our recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) uncovered a culture of opacity: initially, CBP refused to disclose whether specific Canadian offenses were classified as CIMTs. After persistent legal efforts, CBP finally released to us an internal CBP table showing which Canadian crimes it views as CIMTs and which it does not. This information can significantly impact Canadians seeking entry to the U.S.

It is not often that one’s life is turned upside down, but a K-1 or spousal visa refusal can be one of those times. Articles on this website about K-1 visa refusals and I-130 spousal visa refusals provide many of the reasons that factor into these denials. Substantial age difference; inability to speak each other’s language fluently; different cultures; previous visitor visa refusals reflecting “desperation;” only one or two meetings prior to filing the petition; “poison pen” letter from an ex or a close relative against the relationship; social media discrepancies. The list of reasons a consul or USCIS may suspect a sham relationship goes on. And with the Trump Administration cracking down on fiancée and marriage fraud, those getting caught in the “fraud net” are not only those in a sham relationship, but those in genuine relationships. The primary reason? A lack of preparation and evidence.

“Make it make sense” is one of the golden rules when preparing these I-129F fiancée and I-130 immediate relative petitions and the subsequent visa applications or I-485 adjustment of status applications. Often times I see a short statement from the US citizen and a couple of photos taken with his significant other, a plane ticket and a receipt for a ring as the only evidence of the relationship. Remember, the burden is on the beneficiary – the fiancée, the spouse – to prove eligibility, not the other way around. This is not a criminal case where the government has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the relationship is bogus.