Case of V.Y.
Case of T.S.
Case of M.L.
Case of S.N.
S. was a very successful entrepreneur with a wife and two young children. He wanted to take his kids to Disney World, but he was ashamed because he was not able to travel to the United States. On a trip to the US about 10 years ago, he had been stopped in the airport with marijuana for his own personal use. He admitted to possessing and frequently using marijuana and was deported. After that he applied for a visa several times, but he was always refused for a controlled substance violation under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) and 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. He then contacted our firm. We first did a Freedom of Information Act request with Customs and Border Protection. After that, we prepared a visitor visa application with a request for a nonimmigrant waiver for him. We highlighted how he overcame the 214(b) obstacle with his strong ties and home country prominence, and how he met the Hranka nonimmigrant waiver criteria. After brief consideration the consul recommended the waiver and within 4 months, he had received a 5-year B visa and traveled to Disney World with his kids.
Case of B.T.
B had been denied a K-1 visa, with the consul questioning whether his relationship with his US citizen fiancée A was real. The consul referred the K-1 petition back to USCIS for revocation of the approval. So A and B decided to get married, with A traveling to B’s country for the wedding ceremony. They thought that would solve their visa problem. But it didn’t. When A submitted an I-130 spousal immigrant petition for B, USCIS sent a Notice of Intent to Deny. It was at that point that A contacted us. In the Notice, USCIS cited to the consular accusation that B’s relationship with A was a sham for immigration purposes. But the Notice did not contain information about what led the consular officer to reach such a conclusion: why did the consul decide that the relationship was a sham? So we did a Freedom of Information Act request, and we were able to learn the reasons for the consular officer’s decision. Upon review, we could see that the consular rationale was weak and mistaken. We then were able to rebut the accusations with strong evidence, and shortly thereafter, USCIS approved the petition and the consular officer issued the visa.
Case of P.P.
P. is a middle-aged man who had already begun to lose hope that he would ever be able to visit his parents in the United States. He had committed a willful, material misrepresentation more than 15 years ago. He had immigrated to a Western country, but was denied a visa under Section 214(b) and Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) several times over the years. He then contacted us, and after an initial consultation, we devised a strategy and represented him in his nonimmigrant waiver application process. His case was complicated by a previous marriage to a US citizen. We were able to gather substantial evidence of how his circumstances had changed for the better over the years, how he lived comfortably in Europe, held a professional job, traveled to many other countries, and was in a long-term relationship. We conducted a mock interview with him to allay his nerves and prepared a concise legal package in support of his application. After a brief 5-minute interview at the Embassy, his visitor visa application was recommended for a waiver. 3 months later, CBP concurred, and the Embassy issued to him the B visa with the waiver.
Case of U.C.
U had been granted nonimmigrant waivers for his E-2 visas. He required a nonimmigrant waiver because a consul had accused him of lying to Customs and Border Protection, an accusation that he did not agree with. He had no reason to lie and had relied on the advice of his lawyer in maintaining his status in the United States. But rather than “appeal” the consular officer’s decision to permanently bar him under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for a willful, material misrepresentation, he took the path of least resistance: requesting a nonimmigrant waiver. He was granted the nonimmigrant waiver two times. But years later, the need for the waiver continued to gnaw at him — “why do I need this waiver when I didn’t do anything wrong?” he thought. It was a matter of pride and principle for him. So he contacted us. After analyzing his situation and gathering evidence that he had indeed relied on his lawyer’s advice and that he had acted honestly and in good faith, 8 years after the consular misrepresentation decision had been made, we challenged it. 3 months later, the misrepresentation decision was rescinded. He no longer required a waiver. U then received a new E-2 visa — without a waiver.
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).