Case of K.K.
Many years ago, we assisted Mr. K in obtaining a nonimmigrant waiver. After his visa and the waiver expired, he obtained citizenship in another country and renounced his home country citizenship. He then applied on his own for a new visa and nonimmigrant waiver with his new passport. But this time his request for the waiver was refused. He then re-initiated contact with our firm. We reached out to the Embassy, pointing to the rules and regulation governing the renewal of nonimmigrant waivers. After one week, the Embassy confirmed its mistake, and two weeks later Mr. K received his new visa and waiver.
Case of A.V.
A was an individual with extraordinary ability in the eyes of all — except the consular officer. Mr. V contacted us after his petition was referred for revocation. According to the consul, Mr. V was a “rank-and-file scientist”, did not have sustained acclaim, and that based on this “new information”, the consul referred the petition for revocation. But the consul was so egregiously wrong that we were able to impress upon consular management and Washington that Mr. V’s immigrant visa application should be reopened and reconsidered: that it would be unfair and unjust for Mr. V to have to wait for USCIS to review his case, a process that can take more than 6 months. After a couple of months of legal wrangling, dialog, and another interview, the Embassy issued to Mr. V his EB-1A immigrant visa. But that was not the end of Mr. V’s case. More than 10 years later, Mr. V applied to naturalize, and at his naturalization interview, a USCIS officer confronted Mr. V with the allegations in the consular revocation memorandum. In fact, USCIS considered denying his naturalization application and reviewing his current status — leaving open the possibility of rescinding his permanent resident status and deporting him. A contacted us, and we were able to attend and participate in his follow-up naturalization interview at the local USCIS office. Over all of those years we had retained Mr. V’s file in our archive, and were able to present it to USCIS — showing what had happened when he applied for the immigrant visa at the Embassy and how he had properly received the visa. After several months of review and investigation, USCIS approved his naturalization application and Mr. V was sworn in as a US citizen.
Case of B.P.
B was in a car accident in a foreign country in which another individual was seriously hurt. As a result, he was charged under the local law and convicted in absentia for negligent driving. An Interpol Red Notice was put out for him. After he resolved the criminal issues with the local authorities and the Red Notice was terminated, he contacted our firm to ensure that he would not be inadmissible to the United States. Unfortunately, when he previously applied for a visa, he failed to disclose that information. We provided a comprehensive legal opinion in support of his visa application, arguing that he had not been convicted for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act; that even if he had, that the crime was not a crime of moral turpitude; and that he had not committed a willful, material misrepresentation in his previous visa application. The consular officer agreed — finding that Mr. P was not inadmissible under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) or Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i).
Case of K.A.
After an encounter at the airport in the US, Mr. A was paroled into the United States for one month. But he was not given a copy of his Record of Sworn Statement in Administrative Proceedings (I-877) and his ongoing medical condition required additional treatment in the US. On behalf of Mr. A, we contacted CBP at the airport in which he entered the US. We requested a copy of his Sworn Statement and that it extend his humanitarian parole for two months. Within 48 hours, the airport sent to us a copy of the Sworn Statement and extended Mr. A’s humanitarian parole status for two additional months.
Case of M.L.
Mr. L’s B-2 visa application was pending under 221(g) for more than two years when he reached out to us. His case was complicated because he required a nonimmigrant waiver and he previously had a green card. Adding urgency to the situation was the fact that his stepfather in the US was undergoing serious medical treatment. But Mr. L’s lawyer in the US disappeared for weeks at a time and was not responding to his emails. So we promptly contacted consular management at the post where his application had been pending. We received an immediate reply, and within a couple of weeks Mr. L’s nonimmigrant waiver was approved and his visa was issued.
Case of H.Y.
H had his ESTA authorization revoked, and was concerned that he would not be able to receive a visa. He was living in a third country, with few ties and a complicated business situation. A 214(b) denial was a real possibility for him. So we conducted a consultation with him and helped him prepare his visitor visa application form DS-160. Closer to the interview date, we conducted a mock interview with him, giving him some pointers and guidance. After a brief 221(g) review, H received his 10 year multiple entry B-1/B-2 visa.
Case of T.Z.
T won the DV-Lottery, and was excited to have the opportunity to immigrate with her son to the US, where her mom and sister were located. But the consul had other plans. T had been denied student visas on 3 different occasions under 214(b) more than 10 years prior. But now the consul focused on one of those applications. He alleged that T had indicated at that time that she had not graduated from high school. The consul not only denied her and her son’s DV Lottery applications, but imposed a lifetime ban on T under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). This did not make sense because she had graduated from high school by that time. In fact, she was applying for a student visa then to attend university in the US, i.e., one of the requirements for enrolment was high school graduation. We gathered her documents confirming her educational background, and after a review, the 6Ci refusal was removed, and her and your young son’s Lottery visas were issued.
Case of S.P.
S’s case presented a smorgasbord of issues: various citizenships, name changes, mistakes in statutory documents, and quirky local laws. This did not hurt S over the years: he received many visas and travelled to the US numerous times. But recently, when he sought entry into the US, his problems started: the focus seemed to be on his newly-acquired citizenship and his ability to use ESTA. CBP refused his entry under Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and referred him back to his country of residence to apply for a visa. But when he did, the Embassy took it one step further: accusing him of making a willful, material misrepresentation under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). We did not agree, and challenged the decision of the consul. After a brief review, the decision was overturned.
Case of V.S.
V was a very successful businessman with a clean visa history, dating back more than a decade. After many years of working with his partner, he left the business on less-than-friendly terms, starting his own business. Needless to say, he was stunned when he was charged with tax fraud in his role as a top executive for that former company. After some discussions and taking advantage of a provision in the local law, he paid the claimed deficiency without admitting any guilt or having the criminal case proceed to trial. But the court case triggered a consular investigation and a finding of permanent inadmissibility under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). V then contacted us. After doing a deep dive into the local law and consulting with his local lawyer, we came to the conclusion that the consul had been mistaken: while the tax evasion was a crime of moral turpitude, there was no “admission of guilt” or “conviction”. We then raised these issues with the consul and the Department of State. After some time, they agreed and removed Mr. S’s 2AiI ban.
Case of O.A.
O and her husband lived a comfortable life in their home country and frequently travelled abroad. On one of her visits to the US, she gave birth to their child. Importantly, she had received her visitor B-1/B-2 visa prior to the implementation of the Trump Birth Tourism rule in January 2020. But that didn’t stop a consul from trying to apply the rule retroactively to her, in blatant violation of the rule. The punishment? A permanent bar from the United States under 212(a)(6)(C)(i). But after O contacted us, we were able to represent her in arguing the erroneous application of the rule to her. After protracted review, the consul rescinded the 6Ci decision.