Press Release

Posted on July 15, 2011

Attached is a brief statement on the court’s decision.

Tags:Department of State DV-2012 Uncategorized

Case Studies

F was a very successful businessman who had traveled to the US on numerous occasions. But he was shocked when his business partner wrote a “poison-pen” letter to the consulate, leading to the revocation of his E-2 visa. His B visa was still valid, but when he showed up at the border as a visitor, CBP revoked his B visa and denied his entry under Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i). F then applied for a new E-2 visa, but it was denied under Section 214(b). But that wasn’t the worst of it: to learn more about his situation, he did a Freedom of Information Act request. Lo and behold, the FOIA materials reflected a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) misrepresentation finding of permanent inadmissibility. F then contacted us. We first contacted the consular office, which acknowledged the revocation of the E-2 visa and 214(b) decision, but confirmed that it had not made a misrepresentation finding. We then reached out to CBP. After a review, CBP acknowledged that it had made the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding and admitted that it had made the decision in error. CBP then removed the finding of inadmissibility.

Case of F.R.

More case studies

Press Release

New State Department Policy: No More "Automatic" Nonimmigrant Waiver Renewals

Canadian Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMTs) and U.S. Admissibility

“You’re only as good as your evidence.” Problems with K-1 Fiancée and I-130 Spousal Immigration cases: why do they suspect a sham relationship?