Case of E.T.
E was like many, believing that an expungement of a previous criminal conviction meant that there were no visa or immigration consequences. But she was wrong — and as a result did not believe or understand that her father required a waiver for his conviction of a crime of moral turpitude. After a consultation, we were able to correct her misconception and provide a road map for her in applying for the immigration waiver for him.
Case of M.K.
An acquaintance of M’s had "thrown him under the bus," telling a CBP officer that M had hired him illegally to do some technical work for him. As a result, CBP entered a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding against M, which M only found out about when he applied for a new H-1B visa in his home country. But the acquaintance was merely trying to "save his own skin" from further interrogation from CBP. We were able to prepare a Motion to Reconsider on behalf of M, as well as supporting documents including declarations. After a brief review period, CBP removed M’s finding of inadmissibility, and the consulate issued the visa to M. Upon his return to the US, M did not have any problems at the port of entry. As a result, he was able to keep his well-paying job in the United States and continue his climb up the career ladder.
Case of J.M.
J was married to a US citizen expatriate and the couple had a US citizen child. The couple had been traveling back and forth to the US over the course of many years, but because J had an elderly mother and lived very comfortably in his home country in Europe, he had no interest in immigrating to the United States or obtaining a green card. And so it came as a shock to him when he was denied a B visa under Section 214(b) and ESTA two times each. He contacted us for a consultation and we were able to provide guidance to him on how to overcome the visa refusals. On re-application, he received a new 10-year B visa.
Case of C.A.
C felt like he and his lawyer were being taken on an endless carousel ride by the National Visa Center. USCIS had approved his I-130 petition for his wife. But when his case reached the National Visa Center for the consular processing of his wife’s immigrant visa application, everything ground to a halt. First, NVC was not satisfied with his I-864 affidavit of support, saying that his income level did not suffice, although he had more than enough assets to meet the legal requirements. Then, after receiving the response, NVC demanded that he find a joint sponsor. 5 months had gone by, and C was no closer to being reunited with his wife. C then contacted us. We immediately reached an NVC supervisor, pointing out the errors in NVC’s handling of C’s case. Within 48 hours, C’s case was “documentarily qualified”, approved for transfer to the embassy.
Case of M.A.
M was once bitten, twice shy. His first L-1 petition was referred back to USCIS for revocation by a consular officer. Two years later, USCIS approved a new L-1 petition for him. But this time, he decided that he was going to minimize his risk at the consular stage. He first contacted us for a consultation to help prepare him for the L-1A visa interview. When the consular officer requested additional documents and temporarily refused his application under 221(g), M retained us to represent him in his dealings with the consulate. We prepared the response to the consular officer and continuously followed up. Shortly thereafter, the consulate issued to M the three-year L-1A visa.
Case of F.R.
F was a very successful businessman who had traveled to the US on numerous occasions. But he was shocked when his business partner wrote a “poison-pen” letter to the consulate, leading to the revocation of his E-2 visa. His B visa was still valid, but when he showed up at the border as a visitor, CBP revoked his B visa and denied his entry under Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i). F then applied for a new E-2 visa, but it was denied under Section 214(b). But that wasn’t the worst of it: to learn more about his situation, he did a Freedom of Information Act request. Lo and behold, the FOIA materials reflected a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) misrepresentation finding of permanent inadmissibility. F then contacted us. We first contacted the consular office, which acknowledged the revocation of the E-2 visa and 214(b) decision, but confirmed that it had not made a misrepresentation finding. We then reached out to CBP. After a review, CBP acknowledged that it had made the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding and admitted that it had made the decision in error. CBP then removed the finding of inadmissibility.
Case of Z.E.
Z had been spending a lot of time in the US. When he returned back to the US on ESTA, he was stopped at the airport and Customs and Border Protection questioned him in-depth. Z was young, single, and did not hold permanent employment in his home country. CBP cancelled his ESTA and denied his entry under Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i). With this black mark on his record and a subsequent visa denial under Section 214(b), Z contacted us two years later. He had settled in a third country, had a serious American girlfriend, set up a small business, and established himself. He wanted to travel to the US to visit his girlfriend’s family. First, we reviewed his Record of Sworn Statement (I-877) and then we helped to strategize with Z: when would be the best time to apply; how could he strengthen his ties; how can he present his case after having the black mark on his record? We helped him complete his DS-160. After a brief interview, Z was granted the B-2 visa.
Case of S.Y.
S’ conditional permanent residency was dragging on and on and on. Instead of 2 years, her conditional status entered its 7th year — nearly 5 years since she submitted an I-829 petition for the removal of her condition as an investor in the EB-5 program. But she was afraid to file a lawsuit because she thought that USCIS might retaliate against her for doing so. After allaying her concerns, we filed the mandamus lawsuit. Within 30 days, USCIS approved her petition.
Case of R.E.
Some lawyers refer to embassies and consulates as fiefdoms — where the rule of law does not seem to apply, where the whims of a single consular officer can wreck lives. R’s case is a prime example. She was already a US citizen, but had been separated from her young daughter for nearly 6 years. Her daughter’s IR-2 immigrant visa case sat at the US Embassy for most of that time — collecting dust under Section 221(g). Why? Because the consul insisted that R travel to the Embassy with her American husband for an interview, and until that happened, he was not going to issue a visa to her daughter. But there was no such requirement in the law. R’s marriage to her husband had already been reviewed three different times by USCIS. When we brought this to the attention of the State Department, it agreed, and finally the Embassy issued the visa to R’s daughter.
Case of G.Y.
G was a successful business manager and the victim of a poison-pen letter from his ex-wife’s family. The letter made outrageous, bogus allegations. The consular officer and a DHS official apparently did not believe the allegations — but gave them enough credence to take a “time out”, temporarily refusing G’s B-1 business visitor application under Section 221(g). But no final decision was made. A year later, G applied again — and again his application was refused under Section 221(g). After no decision was made, G tried again 2 years later. Same result. At that point, G contacted us. “How is it that my ex-wife’s family can prevent me from going to the US?” he asked. We proactively sought to address the allegations — preparing substantial evidence to prove that the allegations were bogus. When the consul again declined to make a final decision, we filed a mandamus lawsuit in the District of Columbia. After 3 ½ months, the consul issued the visa.