Search
  • About Us
  • Services
  • 214(b)
  • 221(g)
    • Overview
    • Mandamus Lawsuit for Delays
  • Inadmissibility
    • Overview
    • 44 Reasons for Student Visa Denials
    • K-1 Visa Refusals
    • 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Material Misrepresentation / Fraud
    • 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(1) Crimes of Moral Turpitude
    • 212(a)(6)(E) Alien Smuggling
    • 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) Inadequate Documentation
    • Expedited Removal
    • ESTA Denials and Revocations
    • Humanitarian Parole
    • 212(a)(2)(C) Drug Trafficking
    • 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) Drug-Related Crimes
    • 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) False Claim to US Citizenship
    • Diversity Lottery Refusals
    • 212(a)(4)(A) Public Charge
    • 212(a)(5)(A) EB-3 Refusals
    • 212(a)(9)(B) Unlawful Presence
    • Boarding Foil Refusals in the I-730 Process
  • Waivers
    • Nonimmigrant Waivers
    • I-601 Immigrant Waivers
  • Revocation
    • Visa Revocation
    • Petition Revocation
  • Case Studies
  • FAQ
  • Blog
  • Consultation
  • Contact
EnRuCnEs
21550 Oxnard Street, Ste. 300
Los Angeles, CA 91367
WhatsApp:
+1 (818) 730-3540
EnRuCnEs
  • About Us
  • Services
  • 214(b)
  • 221(g)
    • Overview
    • Mandamus Lawsuit for Delays
  • Inadmissibility
    • Overview
    • 44 Reasons for Student Visa Denials
    • K-1 Visa Refusals
    • 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Material Misrepresentation / Fraud
    • 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(1) Crimes of Moral Turpitude
    • 212(a)(6)(E) Alien Smuggling
    • 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) Inadequate Documentation
    • Expedited Removal
    • ESTA Denials and Revocations
    • Humanitarian Parole
    • 212(a)(2)(C) Drug Trafficking
    • 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) Drug-Related Crimes
    • 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) False Claim to US Citizenship
    • Diversity Lottery Refusals
    • 212(a)(4)(A) Public Charge
    • 212(a)(5)(A) EB-3 Refusals
    • 212(a)(9)(B) Unlawful Presence
    • Boarding Foil Refusals in the I-730 Process
  • Waivers
    • Nonimmigrant Waivers
    • I-601 Immigrant Waivers
  • Revocation
    • Visa Revocation
    • Petition Revocation
  • Case Studies
  • FAQ
  • Blog
  • Consultation
  • Contact
  1. Home
  2. Blog
  3. Office of Inspector General Report on Lottery Fiasco

Office of Inspector General Report on Lottery Fiasco

Posted on November 2, 2011

http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/176330.pdf

Tags:Department of StateDV-2012Green Card LotteryOffice of Inspector General Department of State

Blog

All blog posts

44 Reasons for a Student Visa Denial

Published on 04.20.2026

Stop Fishing for Free Legal Advice: Why Complicated Cases Demand Real Consultations

Published on 04.14.2026

The Clock Never Runs Out: Why You Should Challenge an Inadmissibility Finding Immediately

Published on 04.06.2026

Case Studies

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 B.C.
More case studies

©1996 – 2026White & Associates
All rights reserved. Practice Limited to Immigration and Nationality Law

Disclaimer
lofo