Posts tagged “INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)”

In many cases, the promise of the shady visa consultant or agent is simple: pay a fee, follow the instructions, and the visa or the status will be approved. The problem is that the instructions often involve exaggerating qualifications, submitting fabricated evidence, or making outright false statements to U.S. immigration authorities. While the agent may collect a substantial fee and move on to the next client, it is the applicant who ultimately bears the consequences.

Over the years, immigration fraud has taken many forms. One example involved the AzTech/Wireclass/Findream OPT scheme, in which individuals were provided with fictitious employment or training arrangements designed to maintain immigration status and create the appearance of lawful employment or training. When these schemes were uncovered, USCIS, ICE, and the Department of State frequently focused not only on the organizers but also on the participants. The problem is that many of those individuals were misled and unwitting participants, particularly in the early years of 2015-2018 when such schemes were not well-known or understood to involve fraud. Yet many of those individuals now find themselves facing visa refusals, findings of fraud or misrepresentation under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i), removal proceedings, or long-term immigration consequences.

There is a pattern we see almost every day. Someone reaches out after a visa cancellation, an expedited removal, or a misrepresentation finding, and instead of engaging in a proper consultation, they try to “test the waters.” They ask if we can help, hint at their situation, or float a vague question hoping for a quick answer. Immigration law—especially at the border or consular level—is not a guessing game. These types of cases are complicated, carry long-term consequences and are fact-intensive, where the smallest detail can change the entire legal strategy.

One of the most common scenarios is the person who calls or writes something like: “My visa was cancelled at the airport and I was given expedited removal. Can you help?” That is the entirety of the information provided. No sworn statement, no timeline, no explanation of what was said to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, no indication of whether there was a finding under INA Section 212(a)(6)(C) or INA Section 212(a)(7)(A). The expectation, however, is that we can immediately assess the case. We cannot. That is precisely why we conduct 60–75 minute consultations—to reconstruct what actually happened, identify legal issues, and determine viable strategies. Anything less is not serious legal work.

One of the most dangerous misconceptions in U.S. immigration law is the belief that time heals everything. It does not—especially when it comes to inadmissibility. We routinely see individuals who assume that a few years—or even decades—will somehow erase a prior finding. But when the issue involves misrepresentation under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), the reality is stark: permanent means permanent. There is no expiration date, no quiet forgiveness, and—perhaps most importantly—no statute of limitations on when you can challenge the finding. That cuts both ways. While it allows challenges decades later, it also means the government’s finding continues to follow you indefinitely unless it is affirmatively addressed.

While we have had some success challenging findings of inadmissibility 20 or more years old, it is very difficult. For example, we were recently contacted by an individual who had a misrepresentation finding dating back more than 20 years because he had apparently presented a bogus financial statement given to him by a visa agent. For years, this did not seem to matter much. The client was able to obtain a nonimmigrant waiver under INA § 212(d)(3), allowing him to travel to the United States despite the finding. Like many applicants in this situation, he treated the inadmissibility as a manageable inconvenience rather than a critical legal problem.