Blog

In many cases, the promise of the shady visa consultant or agent is simple: pay a fee, follow the instructions, and the visa or the status will be approved. The problem is that the instructions often involve exaggerating qualifications, submitting fabricated evidence, or making outright false statements to U.S. immigration authorities. While the agent may collect a substantial fee and move on to the next client, it is the applicant who ultimately bears the consequences.

Over the years, immigration fraud has taken many forms. One example involved the AzTech/Wireclass/Findream OPT scheme, in which individuals were provided with fictitious employment or training arrangements designed to maintain immigration status and create the appearance of lawful employment or training. When these schemes were uncovered, USCIS, ICE, and the Department of State frequently focused not only on the organizers but also on the participants. The problem is that many of those individuals were misled and unwitting participants, particularly in the early years of 2015-2018 when such schemes were not well-known or understood to involve fraud. Yet many of those individuals now find themselves facing visa refusals, findings of fraud or misrepresentation under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i), removal proceedings, or long-term immigration consequences.

By now, you may have heard of the bombshell adjustment of status memorandum released by USCIS last week. In that memo, USCIS emphasizes that the grant of adjustment of status is “an extraordinary matter of discretion” and was not meant to “supersede the regular consular processing of immigrant visas.” While it is unclear how exactly it will be implemented or whether it will be invalidated by the courts, it is clear that, as of today, there is a new calculus in determining whether one should seek to adjust status or consular process. Any nonimmigrant – a visitor (B or ESTA/VWP), student (F), exchange visitor (J-1), professional (H-1B), business executive/manager/specialist (L-1), individual with extraordinary or distinguished ability (sciences, arts, etc.…) (O-1), athletes/cultural workers (P) religious workers (R-1) – who is located in the US and has an interest in and legal basis for immigrating through a family, immediate relative, employment or diversity lottery immigration category must consider the potential ramifications of the new memo.

Below are the visitor visa refusal statistics for FY-2024 and FY-2025. These statistics relate to B visitor visas and do not include other nonimmigrant visa categories.

The newly released numbers show that refusal rates increased for many countries in FY-2025, although the trend was not universal. Some countries experienced only minor fluctuations, while others saw dramatic increases in refusals within a single fiscal year. Countries such as Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Egypt all recorded refusal rates above 45% in FY-2025, with several exceeding 60%. At the same time, countries such as Argentina, Malaysia, Brazil, and South Africa continued to maintain comparatively lower refusal rates.

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.