“Jack-in-the-Boxed” at Your Visa Interview? Why are consular officers now springing on visa applicants permanent bars out of nowhere?
Posted on November 3, 2025
A jack-in-the box is a toy that, when opened, springs a figure – usually a clown – out of the box suddenly. This figure has come to mind a lot lately as more and more visa applicants learn for the first time that they have been permanently barred from the United States based on some government database red flag. Often, the applicants have nothing in their background to indicate any visa problems and have been traveling to the US for years. So when the consul springs Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) misrepresentation, 212(a)(3)(A)(i) unlawful activity, 212(a)(6)(E) smuggling, or 212(a)(2)(C)(i) trafficking finding on the applicant, the applicant is left with shock, confusion, and a permanent bar – and sometimes without the possibility of a waiver.
The good news is that these flags are often correctable mistakes. Sometimes the consul will point the finger at USCIS as the source of the finding of inadmissibility – particularly in 212(a)(6)(C)(i) decisions. But USCIS never made such a decision – or if it did, did not tell the petitioner. Perhaps USCIS denied a work (e.g., H-1B, L-1, O-1) or immigrant (e.g., spousal, parental, and family immigration, EB-1A, EB-2 National Interest Waiver, EB-3, EB-5) petition, but not on grounds related to fraud or a willful, material misrepresentation. Before denying a petition, it will almost always issue a Request for Evidence or a Notice of Intent to Deny. By law, USCIS is supposed to confront the petitioner with “derogatory information” that can lead to a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) decision. Sometimes after receiving a response to the RFE or NOID, USCIS will withdraw an allegation of misrepresentation that was contained in the RFE or NOID. When making a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) final decision, USCIS is required to indicate that in its decision.
The other common scenarios that we are seeing are applicants who have either been traveling to the US for years or denied visas under Section 214(b) are being confronted at their immigrant visa interviews with accusations related to fraud, alien smuggling, unlawful activity and drug trafficking stemming from incidents that took place 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Sometimes, these incidents are unknown to the applicant. For example, if your passport was lost or stolen and then someone tries to use it to smuggle others into the US, your name may end up in the visa database. Then, the consul may put the burden on you to prove – 25 years after the incident - that it was not you doing the smuggling. Sometimes, these are guilt by association situations – you had a friend who was involved in illicit activity and because you were associated with him, you too become a target and the visa database reflects this. But peculiarly, you have been able to travel to and from the United States for years and years and years without incident, and only at the immigrant visa interview do you find out about the problem. Now, you are stranded.
What makes these situations particularly troublesome are the tentacles of the US immigration bureaucracy and how you can be tossed back and forth like a ping-pong ball between government agencies trying to figure out what the problem is and how to solve it. The Department of State, USCIS, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Drug Enforcement Administration – all daunting, massive government behemoths always ready to levy allegations but less ready to rectify injustices. Instead of “ready, aim, shoot” the government motto seems to be “shoot, then aim.” The other motto applicable here seems to be “the buck stops with them,” that is, the “other” government agency is responsible for the red flag, not the person interviewing you.
If you have been “jack-in-the-boxed” at your visa interview, please feel free to contact us.