Case Studies
Case of A.B.
A fell victim to a shady lawyer, who filed an asylum application for her without her knowledge. Her problems started when she left the United States and tried to apply for a new visa and later married a US citizen. We helped her with FOIA requests to the Department of State and USCIS. By obtaining those results, she was able to access her asylum application and her previous visa applications. This helped her address the questions and concerns of the consul, allowing for the issuance of her CR1 immigrant visa and leading to her unification with her US citizen husband.
Case of Y.H.
Y had filed a K-1 I-129F petition for her fiancé. But when her fiancé went to his interview, he was accused of seeking to enter into a sham marriage and permanently barred under 212(a)(6)(C)(i). The consul referred the petition back to USCIS. After Y contacted us, we assisted in getting Y’s bar removed.
Case of G.V.
The consul permanently barred G, a very successful businessman, from the United States under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). But G did not understand why. And after conducting a detailed consultation and reviewing his 25-year visa history, it was also not clear to us. So we requested the consulate and the Department of State to clarify the underlying factual basis for the decision. After two months, the Department of State re-opened and re-examined the decision. Not seeing a legal basis for the entry of the 6Ci finding, it rescinded the 6Ci inadmissibility. Two months later, G applied for and received a new B visitor visa.
Case of X.D.
X’s father had been accused of drug trafficking. As a result, X’s F-1 student visa was denied under Section 212(a)(2)(C)(ii). Years later, he reached out to our firm for a consultation. We advised him that because he had been living independently for more than five years from his parents and had not received any financial or other benefit from his father during that time, he was no longer inadmissible under that section of that law. After the consultation, X applied for a new B visa. After a one-week review, the consul issued the visa.
Case of D.C.
For D’s visa case, in which it was alleged that he had engaged in alien smuggling (Section 212(a)(6)(E)), it was critical to establish the dates of his and his family member’s entries to and exits from the United States more than 10 years prior. In response to Freedom of Information Act requests to the Customs and Border Protection, CBP issued “no records” responses, claiming that it did not have any documents or materials related to D and his family member. We knew that was not true. We immediately filed a complaint with the CBP FOIA Liaison. Within 48 hours, CBP released comprehensive responsive replies, containing more than 20 pages of information related to their trips to the United States.
Case of C.W.
C is a prominent professional working with top US multinationals. He tried to enter the US with a B visitor visa to see his son, but CBP stopped him at the airport in the US. Not only did CBP find him inadmissible under Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), it accused him of lying in his visa application and entered a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding. Many years later, C consulted with us on how best to approach his complicated situation. After the consultation, C applied for a new visitor visa and received it after the 6Ci was removed.
Case of H.T.
We represented H in her I-601 immigrant waiver application after she had been found inadmissible under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) for convictions for crimes of moral turpitude. Because more than 15 years had elapsed since her last criminal incident, H was eligible to apply for a Section 212(h) immigrant waiver. She was rehabilitated and did not present a danger to the US; her community considered her to be an upstanding citizen. We presented more than 10 character reference letters, as well as letters of support from her current and previous employers. USCIS then approved the waiver, and less than two months later, H received her IR5 immigrant visa, allowing her to immigrate to live with her US citizen daughter and grandchildren.
Case of O.D.
In a case in which a drug trafficking allegation (Section 212(a)(2)(C)(i)) was involved, we undertook a Freedom of Information Act request for O with the Drug and Enforcement Administration. DEA acknowledged that it had records on O, but claimed that release of the records was exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemptions and therefore would not turn over any records. We appealed that DEA FOIA decision, arguing in favor of the presumption of openness; DEA’s obligation to “segregate” the disclosable records from the exempted ones; and that in a similar request, DEA disclosed materials. The DEA FOIA branch agreed and remanded our request for further processing. Soon thereafter, DEA released responsive records.
Case of M.R.
M lied at her H-1B visa interview: she stated that she was working at her employer’s office, but in fact she was working at home. As a result, the consul imposed a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) decision on her. She then retained our firm. We argued that her home and the employer’s office were located in the same Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), and so for H-1B and Labor Condition Application purposes, the prevailing wage was the same, i.e., her misrepresentation was not material. After a brief review, the misrepresentation decision was rescinded.
Case of T.V.
T arrived to the United States as a B-2 visitor. Several months after arriving, she decided to stay. Her US citizen daughter K decided to undertake the immigration process for her mother “DIY” — do it yourself, without the assistance of a lawyer. But the process is not that simple — it includes accurately completing more than 50 pages of forms for the immigrant petition (I-130)/adjustment of status (I-485)/employment authorization (I-765)/advance parole-travel authorization (I-131)/ and affidavit of support (I-864), as well as providing numerous supporting documents. While USCIS accepted the I-130 petition, it rejected the I-485 because K used an outdated form and submitted a check for the processing fee in the wrong amount. As a result, T became “illegal” because her I-94 expired. K then contacted us. We then prepared the 485/765/131 package for her, as well as the affidavit of support (I-864), the affidavit of support from a co-sponsor (I-864A), and a short memorandum regarding T’s status. 7 months later, T’s green card was issued.