Think Before You Depart: Missed Removal Hearings and a New Wave of Visa Refusals

Posted on May 5, 2026

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.

A critical component of Section 212(a)(6)(B) is the concept of “reasonable cause.” The law does not impose a strict liability standard; rather, it requires an inquiry into why the individual failed to appear. Reasonable cause is generally understood as something outside the individual’s reasonable control. Examples that may qualify include serious medical emergencies, lack of proper notice due to government error, or other extraordinary circumstances that genuinely prevented attendance. On the other hand, explanations such as forgetting the hearing date, misunderstanding the importance of the proceeding, or choosing not to attend are typically insufficient. Importantly, the fact that an immigration court later reopened and terminated the case does not automatically establish reasonable cause for purposes of a consular officer’s analysis. Consular officers make independent determinations and may reach different conclusions about whether the failure to appear was excusable.

The practical takeaway is straightforward but significant: individuals with any missed immigration court appearances should proceed with caution before leaving the United States to pursue an immigrant visa abroad. What may appear to be a resolved issue—especially in cases that were later reopened or administratively closed—can resurface in the consular context with serious consequences. Consular officers are using Section 212(a)(6)(B) decisions as another “arrow in the quiver” to prohibit the return of individuals to the United States.  In the current adjudicatory climate, heightened vigilance and thorough pre-departure analysis are not optional; they are essential to avoiding avoidable refusals and multi-year bars to reentry. If you would like to discuss your situation with us, please contact us.