Problem at the Airport? You are not Alone. The Skyrocketing of Section 212(a)(7)(A) Decisions and Withdrawals of Applications for Admission

Posted on November 22, 2024

Recently, a report was published chronicling the number of foreign citizens found to be inadmissible to the United States. While much attention is given to the US-Mexico border, more than half of the 1.2 million inadmissibility findings for fiscal year 2024 relate to other ports of entry. One of the report’s most stunning findings relates to the exponential growth in the number of individuals who have withdrawn their application for entry: from about 50,000 in 2019 to nearly 200,000 in 2024. While the term “withdraw an application” sounds benign, it can be traumatic - with long-term consequences.

According to the report, the most common ports of entry for these findings of inadmissibility are in Buffalo, Seattle, and Boston. Chicago O’Hare is another airport with a reputation for having a rigorous enforcement mentality. The most common home countries for individuals who have withdrawn their applications for entry include Canada, India, China, France, and Mexico.

Our article on this website provides some information about what it means to withdraw an application for entry to the United States and the determination by a Customs’ official under Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The typical withdrawal case revolves around a situation where the customs inspector finds something amiss with the foreign citizen’s entry to the US. Perhaps the person spent substantial time in the US previously as a visitor; a baggage inspection turns up original documents such as a birth certificate and diploma; a review of the individual’s phone shows some incriminating text messages. This can prompt the inspector to interrogate the individual and suspect the nature of the person’s true intentions. Consequently, the inspector will question whether the visa is the proper one - or in the case of visitors who do not require a visa, whether a visa is necessary - and invoke Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). By doing so, the CBP inspector is, in essence, advising that the status sought does not correspond to the planned activity. In most cases, the inspector will revoke the visa under the regulation 22 CFR § 41.122(e)(3) and allow the individual to withdraw the application rather than bar the individual for 5 years (expedited removal) or permanently under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) (misrepresentation).

But the hours of detention at the airport and the “self-deportation” back to the home country can be just the start of the problems. Ahead lies a new visa application and the conversation/interview with the consular officer, who may read and interpret the interrogation statement in a draconian fashion: determining that the person had lied to the visa officer or the customs officer previously (e.g., violating the “90 Day Rule”) and entering a permanent bar for a misrepresentation. This is true whether the person decides to take a break from the US for a few years or applies for a visa as soon as he or she returns home: the encounter with CBP is forever a part of the record.

If it is not clear by now, these situations can be very serious – with permanent consequences. To discuss your situation, please feel free to contact us.

Tags: Withdrawal of Application for Admission, Visa Revocation, 22 CFR § 41.122(e)(3), Customs and Border Protection, Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), 90 Day Rule, Expedited Removal, Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i), misrepresentation