Posts tagged “212(a)(6)(C)”

“It ain’t over till the fat lady sings…” The opera expression widely used in sports has taken on a whole new relevance in the immigration world. No longer are government agencies approving applications and deferring to previously-approved applications or adjudications. Rather, they are reopening past applications — from 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago — searching for misrepresentations, inconsistencies, and loose ends to thwart applications for visas, changes to status, and adjustment of status. You are so close to getting that long-desired visa or green card, but the “fat lady” — in these cases, USCIS and the State Department consular posts — doesn’t want the “opera” to end. The boundaries are unlimited. Even relatively obscure provisions of immigration law, such as the “stowaway” provision, are being invoked more and more. A stowaway is someone who obtains transportation without consent and through concealment. Anyone who enters the US by a…

Thank you for all of your questions related to AZTech, Integra, Andwill, and Wireclass. The dramatic upsurge in questions corresponds to the mass issuance of Requests for Evidence (RFE) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOID) by USCIS to I-765 STEM extension applicants and H-1B petitioners. The texts of the NOIDs and RFEs are relatively standard. For example, one of the RFEs states: Provide your complete employment history (including start and end dates) and proof of employment for your initial grant of Optional Practical Training (OPT). Evidence of employment may include but is not limited to: Letters for employer(s) establishing jot title(s), duties, location, pay rate, and number of hours worked per week. Copies of your earning statements/pay stubs. Copies of your W-2s. If you worked for an employment agency or consultancy, you must provide evidence of the jobs you worked on and dates worked. Additionally, if you…

Thank you for your phone calls. After speaking with so many of you, it has become obvious that those who were associated with AZTech, Integra Technologies, Wireclass and Andwill did so with legitimate intentions and the goal of full compliance with the OPT requirements. While the common thread binding most of you is a visa revocation, there are several categories of individuals who have been impacted, including: 1) those in the US who are beneficiaries of a pending H-1B petition and USCIS has issued a Request for Evidence (“RFE”) or Notice of Intent to Deny (“NOID”) related to their prior OPT experience and/or visa revocation; 2) those in the US who are applying for STEM OPT extensions and USCIS has issued a RFE or NOID related to their prior OPT experience and/or visa revocation; 3) those who attempted to enter the US with a visa and Customs and Border Protection…

The consequences of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigation of the US companies Findream, Sinocontech, AzTech, Integra Technologies, Wireclass, and Aandwill are now becoming evident. Thousands of students and young professionals, primarily Chinese and Indian, have had their visas revoked because of their past association with these companies. Worse, it appears that the US Government has presumed that these individuals were aware of the fraudulent nature of the offers of training to comply with the Optional Practical Training program requirements and is entering decisions to permanently bar them from the United States under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“6C”). For many of these individuals, it does not have to be this way. A US government official can only make this determination based on an individualized review. Everyone’s circumstances were different. What was his or her specific intent at the time of accepting the training offer? Was…

Today we are publishing an article on the site about Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This is the decision of a Customs and Border Protection official at airports and other ports of entry not to allow an individual into the United States because he/she does not have the proper visa. For visa holders, the CBP inspector revokes the visa with the inscription “22 CFR 41.122(e)(3)”. While CBP does not provide a breakdown on the number of times it actually invokes this Section, it is clear that this number has escalated substantially under the Trump Administration. In 2017, the number of inadmissibility findings by CBP totaled 216,470. In 2019, that number increased to 288,523, a 33% jump. This number only relates to those who tried to enter the US legally — as a Visa Waiver Program participant or visa holder. When invoking 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), CBP sends these individuals back…

Today we are publishing a new article about K-1 visas. In the article we discuss the 16 primary reasons a consul finds a K-1 case suspicious. The article also highlights the 4 steps the American citizen and fiancée can take to prevent denials. Finally, the article discusses in detail how to deal with a 221(g) refusal, an accusation of a sham relationship, and what to do if the petition is sent back to USCIS. The most important takeaway from the article: just because there is a real, sincere relationship does not mean that the K-1 visa will be issued. A lack of evidence, a weak interview, or a skeptical consul who believes he knows the fiancee’s “true intentions” better than the US petitioner can sabotage a K-1 case. Contact us to discuss your case.

Today we are publishing a new article on this site about student visas. In the article, we catalog 40 reasons why an F-1 visa can be denied. Straightforward 214(b) rejections, complicated 212(a)(6)(C)(i) permanent bans, and protracted 221(g) delays are some of the most common problems arising from an F-1 application. What would appear to be a straightforward, simple visa process can turn into a veritable minefield for the unsuspecting. And while some of the denial reasons may be beyond the control of the applicant, what is obvious is that some students are unprepared for the visa application process — with many receiving avoidable refusals. Contact us to discuss your situation.

At least a couple of times a month I get a similar, frantic phone call. “I just applied for a new visa, but it was denied. The consul didn’t like the fact that I spent 5 months in the US on my last trip. I told him that the airport inspector allowed me to stay for 6 months. I didn’t do anything wrong!” Or “My visa has been revoked. But I didn’t do anything wrong. When I arrived in the US, they gave me 6 months to stay, so I did. I didn’t violate any laws, so why are they revoking my visa?!?” The revocation is done by either the consul or the airport inspector the next time the visa holder arrives in the US. There are many “red flags” here considered by the consul or airport inspector: The visa holder must remember that when he applies for a visa…

One usually does not associate the US Government Accountability Office with “interesting” reports, but last year’s report on E-2 visas was eye-opening. Of particular note are the reasons why E-2 applicants are denied. While the report is limited to examining certain countries, it provides critical insight into the thinking of consular officers and obstacles to obtaining E-2 visas. As a reminder E-2 visas are limited to nationals of countries with whom the United States has commerce and navigation treaties. The full list of countries can be found on the Department of State’s website, with 80% of all E-2 applicants originating from 9 countries: Japan, Germany, UK, France, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Italy, and Spain. The majority of E-2 visa applicants are related to large investments (>$10 million) — think of managers and essential employees going from Japan to work in a large car plant in the United States. However, the…

Statutes of limitation apply in criminal law. They were put into place to prevent the prosecution of an alleged wrongdoing after a certain number of years has gone by (usually 5–7 years). There are many reasons for this: evidence goes stale; witnesses are unavailable; memories fade; to allow for certainty and repose of the parties; and to prevent inconsistent decisions. But there is no statute of limitations in visa/immigration law. With some exceptions, until recently, this has not been a significant problem. But along with the anti-immigrant politics of the Trump Administration has come a new visa phenomenon: consular officers are now using the lack of a statute of limitations to “exhume” perceived past visa transgressions. They are re-opening and reconsidering suspected visa violations — with no limitation of time or past consular “exoneration”. Consular officers are now revisiting such transgressions from 5, 10, or even 15 years ago -…

The Trump Administration announced new rules regarding birth tourism, which took effect on January 24, 2020. Already, misinformation has cropped up. So to provide some clarity, the below FAQ is provided: Whom do the new rules affect? They only affect applicants for B visitor visas; they do not impact current holders of visas nor citizens of Visa Waiver Program countries who can enter the US without a visa. May current holders of visas and those who hold passports from Visa Waiver Program countries enter the United States to give birth? The Department of Homeland Security, which include Customs and Border Protection inspectors at ports-of-entry, has not announced any new policies or reinterpretations of allowing entry for those who enter to give birth. In the past inspectors permitted women to enter the US to give birth as long as they could show the ability to cover the cost of birth. However,…

With the dramatic upsurge in consular decisions to permanently bar visa applicants from the United States, the question of applying for an immigrant or nonimmigrant waiver has become more and more acute. Many immigration lawyers will advise to just accept the decision, admit that you were wrong, say you are sorry, and apply for the waiver. They say that your chances of receiving the waiver will be increased if you admit your guilt and express remorse, even if you did not do anything wrong. But what if you are not “guilty”? What if you did not commit a material misrepresentation (Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i))? Or engage in alien smuggling (Section 212(a)(6)(E))? Or commit a crime of moral turpitude (Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I))? Should you admit you were wrong? Of course not. There are legal mechanisms to challenge such lifechanging decisions, such as a Request for Reconsideration. Sometimes, the supervisor of the consular officer or…

This myth has been going around for years — no doubt perpetuated by representatives of 2nd passport programs. A national of Country X has US visa problems — because of a criminal incident 20 years ago making him inadmissible to the US. He decides to obtain a passport from a European Union country by making a very substantial investment. Because he has been told that nationals of his new country are eligible for the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) — a program that allows for travel as a tourist or business visitor to the US for up to 90 days without a visa, with no visa interview required — he is under the impression that he should qualify too. Until he reads the fine print — or consults with a US immigration lawyer. Before boarding a flight to the US without a visa, citizens of VWP countries pre-register with the US…

I received a frantic call from a client recently at her naturalization interview. She was being advised by the interviewing officer that her application was going to be denied because she did not meet the residency requirements. In the run-up to the interview, the client and I had reviewed all of the relevant legal issues, including the physical presence and continuous residence requirements, and I assured her that she met the requirements for naturalization. The officer was kind enough to speak with me over the phone, but remained unpersuaded from her position that the residency requirements were not met. The client left the USCIS office and went home extremely upset, notwithstanding my attempts to calm her down and assurances that we were in the right and would be able to challenge any adverse decision. And then, two hours after the interview, something strange happened: I received an e-mail notification from…

The statistics stun — even the most callous observer. In just two years, the number of individuals denied immigrant visas under the public charge section of the law (Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) has increased more than 12 times! Alien smuggling (Section 212(a)(6)(E)) findings doubled for immigrant visa applicants over the past year. Misrepresentation (Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)) decisions for these applicants increased by more than 25%. 214(b) denials for those applying for nonimmigrant visas — more than 2.7 million — also edged upwards. The Department of State’s statistics table lists more than 50 visa ineligibility grounds. But one is hard pressed to remember such a radical increase in denials for a single ineligibility as with the public charge provision over the past two years. Incredibly, this massive increase is not a result of any changes in or amendments to the law itself. This would take congressional action. Rather,…

Every day, we receive e-mails such as these: “Hello, I was denied a Returning Resident Visa. Can you help?” “Good day. I have traveled to the US 10 times over the past 5 years and never had a problem. When I tried to board the plane to the US last week, I was told that my visa was revoked. Can you assist?” “Last summer I was barred from entering the US for five years. What are my options?” Not to be macabre, but imagine that you were diagnosed with cancer, and on the Internet, you look up the names of some cancer doctors, and you sent them e-mails, asking whether they can help you? What would the doctor respond? Similarly, when it comes to US visas, the only way to truly assess a case is by having a detailed discussion — about your personal circumstances, about what was indicated in…

Sometimes, it doesn’t make sense. When a potential client contacts us regarding a decision by a consular officer, we try to understand, first of all, why was the decision made? What caused the consular officer to make the decision he or she did? Often, we can understand the position of the consular officer; while we may not always agree with that position and in fact challenge the position, we at least can identify the problem. But sometimes, we are confounded. Take for example the situation of J. J contacted us after he had been turned around at the border by Customs and Border Protection. The CBP protocol memorializing J’s request to enter the US was clear: it said that J needed a different type of visa. He had previously been a student in the US, and he needed to obtain a visitor visa in order to return to the US…

Did you go to your employment visa interview and the consular officer told you that the approval of your petition is being revoked? This is not an uncommon story, as more and more H-1B, L-1, O-1, and P-1 petitions are being recommended for revocation every year by consular officers. In general, consular officers must defer to the judgment of USCIS and the grounds for revocation are limited. To recommend revocation of the approval of a petition, the consular officer must have discovered material new facts or misrepresentation or find that the visa applicant does not have the qualifications for the visa. But often times consular officers substitute their own opinion and readjudicate the petition. We are seeing this more frequently, particularly in the context of O visa adjudications, in which the consular officer sets a much higher bar for qualification than USCIS. The stakes are particularly high for those applicants…

Most people understand that if they are arrested, it is possible that their visas will be revoked. DUIs, drug possession, domestic violence, shoplifting — these are just some of the situations in which individuals with valid visas have their visas revoked. But what is less known — and understood — is that the Department of State has the ability to revoke visas for any reason in which eligibility is questioned. In other words, the inquiry into whether an individual qualifies for a visa does not stop at the time of issuance; it is a process that can be — and often is — reactivated at any time after issuance. In fact, we are seeing more revocations for non-criminal issues than criminal problems. So what leads to this re-examination of an individual’s eligibility? The trigger points for such a “verification reactivation” are numerous. For example, consular officers conduct validation studies, checking…

Mssrs. R, Y, K, K, and D each submitted entries for the DV–2018 Lottery during the registration period in the fall of 2016. They each had been divorced by an Uzbek court before the Lottery, so they indicated in their entries that they were divorced. Each of them was selected as a winner. After attending their interviews and presenting the court decisions as evidence of their divorce, they were advised by consular staff that they were being refused immigrant visas because they had not picked up their divorce certificates from the local registration office prior to submission of their entries: as a result, in the eyes of the Embassy, they were not officially divorced when they completed their Lottery entries. While the Uzbek law on divorce is ambiguous, it has been in effect since 2011. What is beyond dispute is that the issuance of a court decision renders the couple…