EspañolРусская версия
21550 Oxnard Street, Ste. 300
Los Angeles, CA 91367
Tel: 818-730-3540
Fax: 509-694-9786

Case Studies

In addition to handling straightforward visa applications and petitions (see our site:, we also represent individuals with unusual visa matters, problems, difficulties and complications. Below we have summarized some of the cases in which we were able to assist these individuals:
  • Case of M.A.

    M needed a visa consultation. 5 years ago she was denied a visa under Section 214(b), but since then her circumstances changed. She acquired a new citizenship and moved to a new, much more stable country. She got married, had two children, and held a stable job as an accountant. We helped her prepare her DS-160 application form and conducted a mock visa interview with her and her husband. After a brief interview, she and her husband were issued new B-2 visas.

  • Case of U.A.

    U was charged with shoplifting and making a false statement to a public servant in the United States. As a part of her plea bargain, she entered into a Stipulation of Continuance. Unfortunately for U, the consul believed that the Stipulation was an admission of guilt to the commission of crimes of moral turpitude and found her inadmissible under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i). We contacted her criminal law attorney and requested that he seek an Order from the Court to confirm that such Stipulation was not an admission of guilt nor a conviction. After the Court entered its Order, we presented that Order to the consul, who rescinded the 2A decision.

  • Case of T.S.

    T was accused of alien smuggling under Section 212(a)(6)(E). He planned a short trip to the United States with his wife and children. But the consul accused him of knowing in advance of their trip that they would not return to their home country. The consul accused him of illicitly facilitating the obtaining of visas by his wife and children. But that was not the case. After his wife and kids landed in the US for vacation, there was a political crisis in their home country, and his wife, an outspoken opposition activist, decided only at that time to submit an asylum application. We prepared a new application for T, requesting the recission of the 6E decision. We documented the fact that T did not facilitate the issuance of the visas to his family, and that neither he nor his wife had any preconceived intent for her and the kids to remain in the US. After an in-depth review, the consul reversed the 6E decision to permanently bar T.

  • Case of M. F.

    M is a citizen of a Visa Waiver Program country. She entered the US as a tourist to see her US boyfriend. Upon questioning at the US airport, she said that she only planned to stay a week to do some sightseeing. Before the allotted 90 days expired, she departed the United States. Two weeks later, she tried to return to the US, but upon her arrival, she was detained, interrogated, and returned back home. She was afraid that she would be permanently barred from the US for making a willful, material misrepresentation, so she retained our firm. We prepared a memorandum, acknowledging her initial willful misrepresentation, but evidencing how the misrepresentation was not material. The consular officer agreed, not finding her inadmissible under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

  • Case of S.B.

    S was turned away by Customs and Border Protection, accused of committing a crime of moral turpitude and found inadmissible under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i). But the reality was that S had only been subject to a civil proceeding before a US administrative agency, not a criminal proceeding. We submitted a Freedom of Information Act request, filed a Travel Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) Complaint with Customs and Border Protection, and contacted the airport CBP that had made the original decision. After protracted discussions and submission of legal documentation, CBP rescinded its decision. We then represented S in his visa application and he was issued the visa without question.

  • Case of A.I.

    A required an I-601 immigrant waiver to join his family in the United States. Unfortunately, his son required serious surgery. We were able to prepare A’s application for a waiver, as well as a request for the expedited processing of his application so that he would be able to join his family in time for the surgery. His immigrant waiver application was approved within two weeks — instead of the usual 6–12 months — and he was able to receive his immigrant visa quickly after that.

  • Case of A.P.

    10 years ago A overstayed and violated the terms of his US F-1 student visa. He was young and wanted to see America, so he dropped out of class and traveled around the US. Finally, he returned home, graduated from the university, started a career, married, had two children, and bought an apartment. Afraid that he would be denied a visa under Section 214(b) but wanting to visit his US citizen sister, he contacted us. We helped him prepare for his interview, helped him complete his DS-160 application, and underscored the change in his circumstances since his return home. After a brief interview, his visa was issued.

  • Case of L.S.

    L attended his immigrant visa interview to join his wife in the United States and was shocked to learn that he was being refused under Section 212(a)(2)(C): the consular officer had “reason to believe” that L was a drug trafficker or assisting one. According to L, the only run-in with the law that he ever had was more than 25 years ago when the Drug Enforcement Agency targeted a co-tenant in the apartment that they were living. On L’s behalf, we conducted a Freedom of Information Act request, and were able to obtain all of the documents the DEA maintained on L. After we presented this information to the Department of State along with a request to overturn the decision, the consular officer issued the immigrant visa to L.

  • Case of U.M.

    After many years of suffering physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her husband, U finally divorced him. She later met a US citizen, and after their relationship developed, he proposed to her. He then submitted a K-1 fiancée petition for her. After the approval, U attended her K-1 visa interview, but she was denied by a consular officer. The consul accused her of executing a sham divorce with her ex-husband and entering into a bogus fiancée relationship with the US citizen with a view towards gaining status in the US and later petitioning for her ex-husband. She was permanently barred from the United States under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). So when her US citizen mother applied to immigrate U, she was denied and required an immigrant waiver. We then documented the abuse at the hands of her ex-husband; the bona fides and legitimacy of her relationship with the US citizen; and in the alternative, the extreme hardship to be endured by her US citizen mother in the event of denial of the I-601 waiver application. After approval, U was able to join her mother in the United States.

  • Case of R.J.

    US citizen R and his out-of-wedlock 19-year old son J had submitted DNA tests in support of R’s immigrant petition. USCIS approved the petition. Yet when J went to the consulate for his immigrant visa interview, the approval of that petition and the DNA results from an officially accredited laboratory in the US were not sufficient to convince the consular officer to issue the immigrant visa to J. The consul insisted that J change his surname to his father’s surname, and temporarily refused the visa under Section 221(g). After more than 2 years of dealing with local bureaucracy in trying to get his son’s name changed, R contacted us. We brought this to the attention of a consular supervisor and requested reconsideration. Specifically, we pointed to the fact that there is no legal requirement that a petitioned-for child have the same surname as the US citizen. We also presented overwhelming evidence of the father-child relationship and their attempts over 2 years to get J’s surname changed. In short order, the immigrant visa was issued to J.

  • Case of Y.M.

    Y is a US citizen. Her father’s immigrant visa application was denied under Section 212(a)(4); he was deemed to be a potential public charge. Y approached and consulted with our firm. We assisted her US citizen brother in filling in an I-864 affidavit of support as a joint sponsor, helped to prepare supporting financial and personal documentation, and submitted the documents to the Embassy. Y’s husband received the visa promptly and joined Y in time for the holidays.

  • Case of R.T.

    R was a young professional in his home country who had previously studied in the United States. He had also visited as a tourist. At some point, he was accused of committing a willful, material misrepresentation and permanently barred from the United States. However, it was not clear which US government agency had made the accusation; when it initially made the accusation; and why it had made the accusation. Rather than engage in a guessing game, we reached out on R’s behalf to the consulate which had recently denied his visa and asked for an explanation. Upon receiving our inquiry, the consulate re-opened and reviewed R’s case and after a couple of weeks rescinded the decision. R then applied for another B visa and received it.

  • Case of T.D.

    T had a green card but preferred to live in her home country. She wanted to keep her green card, but did not want to travel to or live in the US. So she arranged for false entry stamps in her passport to “confirm” her travels to the US and maintain her US status. Upon discovery, her green card was taken from her and she was permanently barred from the US under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). Many years later, T wanted to visit her daughters in the US and required a nonimmigrant waiver to do so. She approached our firm, and we were able to prepare a nonimmigrant waiver package in support of her application. After a long and in-depth interview, the consular officer recommended approval, and three months later, the Department of Homeland Security concurred. She was granted a 5 year waiver, with a multi-entry B visa.

  • Case of T.A.

    T had been denied three times under 214(b) by the Embassy to travel to the US for medical treatment and cosmetic surgery. Her case was complicated because she was single, young, with no children, and the doctor’s office failed to confirm her appointment when the Embassy inquired. We gathered her personal documentation reflecting her ties and ability to pay the cost of the surgery, as well as an explanation from the doctor about the miscommunication. After reviewing her new application, the Embassy promptly issued to her a 10-year, multi-entry B visa.

  • Case of Z.R.

    Mr. R’s parents won the Green Card Lottery while he was under the age of 21. He immigrated with his family to the US. Later, he returned to his home country, fell in love with Z and married her. Because he was spending the majority of his time outside the US, he was unable to accumulate enough time as a permanent resident to become a US citizen. US immigration law imposes quotas on spouses of green card holders; as a result, long waits to immigrate to the United States are the norm. So Z decided to enter into a sham marriage with an unmarried Lottery winner in order to “expedite” her immigration. The consular officer found out about the sham marriage and permanently barred her for her misrepresentation (Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)). With our assistance, Mr. R then initiated the process of immigration for his wife and their two children. While the process of immigration for his children was straightforward, we had to prepare an immigrant waiver application for his wife based on the extreme hardship Mr. R would suffer in the event of a denial. After a 6-month review process, USCIS approved the immigrant waiver.

  • Case of N.V. and I.V.

    The Vs were a prominent couple: he was a famous ex-hockey player and she was the Director of a large retail outlet. So when they applied for visas to visit their permanent resident daughter, they thought they would receive the visas without any problems. Unfortunately, they thought wrong. Their daughter had not returned to her home country after visiting the US as a student; while a student, she met a US citizen whom she later married. So the consul decided to punish her parents under 214(b), notwithstanding their overwhelming familial, social and economic ties to their home country, including grandchildren, elderly parents, well-paying jobs, and substantial property interests. We then interceded on their behalf, and they were able to receive visas.

  • Case of K.P.

    In a complicated case K was permanently barred from the United States under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) by an overzealous consular officer who accused K of presenting a bogus job confirmation letter in support of his H-1B application. The consular officer even went so far as to compel K to sign a Voluntary Statement DS-5529 that the letter was not authorized, although K believed that it was. The consular officer referred the petition back to USCIS, recommending the revocation of the approval. But rather than acting on the consular officer’s recommendation, USCIS did nothing — and the validity period expired. We called into question the validity of the Voluntary Statement and the determination of the consular officer. After much deliberation, the 6C decision was overturned.

  • Case of I.K.

    Mr. K had been denied a B-2 visa five times under Section 214(b). Unfortunately, he had not been honest in his previous applications about the fact that his sister was located in the U. S. He contacted us, and we brought him "out of the shadows", helping him to "come clean" with the Embassy. We prepared a new application evidencing the bona fides of his business in his home country and his stable family and economic situation there. After extensive review, the Embassy issued to him a B-2 visa.

  • Case of A.L.

    Mrs. L was denied an F-2 visa on two occasions. She sought to join her student husband in the United States. Because such visa refusals are supposed to be "rare" and warranted only when there is a difference in circumstances between the spouses, we challenged these denials. Mrs. L was called in for another interview, and issued the visa.

  • Case of A.M.

    Mr. M applied to a US consulate after his company’s L-1 petition was approved. But rather than process his visa application, the consular officer "sat on" it. The consular officer sought to punish Mr. M because he believed that Mr. M and his family had spent too much time in the US on B visas. Because of the consular inaction, the validity period for the L-1 petition expired and his company had to submit a new petition to USCIS. After the petition was re-approved, Mr. M re-applied for an L-1 visa. This time, the consular officer denied the application. Mr. M then retained our firm, and we brought this to the attention of the Consul General and Washington. After a new interview, Mr. M was issued his L-1 visa.

  • Case of K.S.

    Mr. S had a used car importing business from Germany. At one point the German authorities called him in to question him about his business. He was released without charges being filed. Apparently, information about the investigation was passed along to the American government, which permanently barred him from the US under Section 212(a)(3)(A)(ii) for "unlawful activity". On his behalf, we challenged the finding and eventually the finding was rescinded and he was issued a visa.

  • Case of M.P.

    Over the course of two years, Ms. P spent most of her time in the US with her teenage daughter, who was enrolled at a famous ballet school. When Ms. P returned to her home country to renew her visa, her application was denied under Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The consular officer accused her of illegally working in the US and spending too much time in the US; the officer made these claims despite the fact that when Ms. P had applied for the visa two years prior, she had honestly notified the Embassy in advance of her plan to accompany her young daughter for two years and presented bank statements showing her ability to support themselves in the US. Over the next two years, the Embassy denied her visa three more times. She then retained our firm, and we were able to clarify information about her refusals, present evidence to rebut the claims of the consular officers, and help her obtain a new multi-entry B-1/B-2 visa.

  • Case of C.D.

    The F-1 student visa renewal of Ms. D turned into a living nightmare. Over the course of one month, four different consular officers reviewed three of her visa applications — with two officers erroneously permanently denying her for committing a crime of moral turpitude; one officer refusing her under Section 214(b); and one officer having her decision to issue a visa overruled by another officer. After preparing a memorandum of law showing how Ms. D met the requirements of the petty offense exception for convictions of a crime of moral turpitude, she received her visa and was able to return to her university just in time for her semester.

  • Case of O.A.

    The applicant, from a Middle Eastern country, had a DUI in the United States. When he applied for another visa, he was denied after a 10-month 221(g) administrative process. He then contacted our firm, in which we were able to bring additional facts to the attention of the consular officer, including the applicant going through a rehabilitation process and the conviction being set aside. The consular officer sent the applicant for additional alcohol screening at a local clinic, and after the results came back clean, issued a visa to him.

  • Case of A.S.

    Mr. S was a famous physicist in his home country, and his EB-11 petition for extraordinary ability was approved. However, because of the nature of his work, his application for adjustment of status was deemed sensitive by the US government and no action was taken on it for four years. After we filed a lawsuit for a writ of mandamus in a federal district court, the US Attorney’s office, which was responsible for defending the lawsuit, contacted USCIS. Within two weeks, USCIS approved the application for adjustment of status.

  • Case of L.M.

    We successfully assisted a woman obtain a tourist visa after she had been denied a visa on eight occasions, dating back more than 15 years. She was denied in part because she had given birth in the US and the cost of the delivery was paid for by the state. After reimbursing the state for her expenses incurred, she received a visa.

  • Case of S.S.

    Mrs. S., an Indian national, has worked in California on an H-1B visa for many years. Her husband, who was in H-4 status, returned to India and applied to renew his H-4 visa at the consulate in Chennai. His application was denied under 221(g), and remained pending for more than 7 months. Mrs. S. then retained us, and within a couple of weeks, Mr. S. received his visa and was reunited with his wife in the US.

  • Case of K.U. and R.U.

    We represented two children, a brother and sister 11 and 8 years old, in helping them obtain humanitarian parole status after being denied visitor visas. This status enabled them to join their mother, who has a green card, in the United States, without having to wait four years. We successfully renewed their parole in the US and later, adjusted their status to permanent residents.

  • Case of D.B.

    Ms. B is married to an American man. She had been permanently barred from the United States by a consular officer and advised that she needed a waiver. The standard for granting a waiver — to prove that the American citizen would be subjected to extreme hardship in the event of denial — is a difficult standard to meet. Instead of submitting a waiver application, we challenged the finding that she had committed a crime of moral turpitude as erroneous. After review of our submission by the Advisory Opinion Division of the Visa Office in Washington, the finding was overturned and she was able to join her husband in the US.

  • Case of K.R.

    Ms. R. was permanently barred by the US Embassy in New Delhi, India for committing a material misrepresentation. She was forced to sign a Voluntary Statement dictated to her by an abusive consular officer and that declaration was used as the basis of the bar. She then contacted us, and we were able to intervene and have the decision overturned.

  • Case of A.S.

    After Ms. S refused to marry an American citizen, he sent a "poison pen" letter to the police, accusing her of being a spy. She was then called into the consulate, and the consular officer revoked her visa. Ms. S then contacted our firm. We were able to intercede on her behalf and the consular officer issued to her a new 3-year B visa.

  • Case of L.M.

    Ms. M was denied a visa two times to visit her daughter and newly-born grandson in the United States. Her daughter had arrived in the US on an exchange visa and remained in the US after its expiration before marrying an American citizen. The consular officers denied Ms. M’s visa applications because her daughter had stayed in the US beyond the term of her original visa. After retaining our firm, Ms. M was able to successfully obtain a B-2 visa and visit her daughter and grandson.

  • Case of A.C.

    Mr. C worked as a teacher at an elementary school in Texas for several years in H-1B status. When he applied to renew his H-1B visa in Mexico City, the consular officer denied him, expressing his belief that Texas should be hiring American teachers. The school district then planned to terminate his contract because of his inability to return to the United States. Our firm brought this to the attention to the Department of State, and the consular officer issued the visa H-1B to Mr. C.

  • Case of F.J.

    After five years in which her sons’ immigrant visa petitions were either pending at the consulate in Lagos, Nigeria under 221(g) or returned to USCIS for petition revocation, Mrs. J contacted our firm. The consulate questioned the legality of her divorce under local law. We immediately contacted the consulate, arranged for a new interview for her sons, and provided additional documentation on her divorce. Within days of the new interview, her sons received immigrant visas.

  • Case of A.B.

    A consular officer found Mr. B. permanently inadmissible to the United States as a drug trafficker (Section 212(a)(2)(C)(i)). The finding was made based on a single piece of evidence: a poison pen letter, apparently from a disgruntled employee. We successfully challenged that decision and the bar to his admissibility was rescinded.

  • Case of E.M.

    Mr. M was convicted in his home country of Belarus under an archaic provision of the criminal code for “exceeding” his authority in his capacity as a director in his company. The consular officer found that the conviction was for a crime of moral turpitude and permanently barred Mr. M. from the United States under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Mr. M. retained our firm, and we conducted an in-depth analysis of crimes which fall under the purview of the statute in question. We presented our findings and arguments to the lawyers in the State Department, who found that the crime did not constitute a crime of moral turpitude and cancelled the inadmissibility bar.

  • Case of Y.A.

    In a highly unusual case, Mr. A. was a recently-landed immigrant from Uzbekistan who found out that he had won the Diversity Lottery. Because his 21 year old son was stranded in his home country but was included in his Lottery entry, Mr. A. decided to obtain another green card so that his son would be eligible to immigrate as well. The problem arose, first, when he was advised by the Kentucky Consular Center that his son was no longer allowed to immigrate as his dependent because he had turned 21. Later the consulate advised Mr. A. that he was not able to obtain another green card, that he had to petition for his son separately, a process which could take several years. Mr. A. then contacted our firm, and we were able to successfully petition for review of both of these decisions, with the end result that Mr. A. received another green card and his son was allowed to immigrate.

  • Case of A.M.

    Mr. M’s I-601 immigrant waiver application and Request for Reconsideration were denied. He was permanently barred from the US for a material misrepresentation in obtaining a visa to be present for the birth of his child in the United States. As a result of the bar, he was living with his two small US citizen daughters in his home country, while his wife worked in the US and visited the family every two months. We submitted an appeal to the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office showing the extreme hardship that the family was dealing with as a result of the separation. After reviewing the evidence, the AAO approved the appeal, and Mr. M and his children were re-united with Mrs. M in the US.

  • Case of R.B.

    The applicant was a dual national — a citizen-resident of one country, in which the maximum visa validity was two years, and a holder of a second passport she legally acquired through the second passport program of St. Kitts (St. Christopher and Nevis), which allowed for ten-year visas. We were able to help in educating the consulate about the legitimacy of the second passport program, and she was issued a ten-year visa.

  • Case of A.S.

    Upon inquiry to the consulate, we learned that a consular officer mistakenly believed that the applicant was a mechanic and therefore denied him under Section 214(b) because his job was viewed as a weak tie to his home country. In fact, the applicant was the owner and general manager of a service station. Upon presentation of additional evidence, he was issued a visa.

  • Case of A.T.

    A consular officer viewed the US mailing address used by a Lottery winner as suspicious and delayed the processing of the case. We called into question what appeared to be a fishing expedition, and soon thereafter, less than one month before the expiration of the Lottery program for that year, the visas were issued to the applicant and his family.

  • Case of G.B.

    Mr. B was an amateur golfer who spent substantial time in the US. When he applied to receive a new visa, he was denied under Section 214(b) because he was “spending too much time” in the US and it was unclear how he was supporting himself. We prepared documentation evidencing Mr. B’s finances, and reminded the consulate that the applied-for visa status permitted prolonged stays in the US for an athlete such as Mr. B. He received a new visa.

  • Case of T.K.

    While she was abroad, her friend in the US sent the new green card of Ms. K to her by express mail. The green card was lost. We helped Ms. K apply for a new green card by submitting an I-90 application and receive a Transportation Letter (Boarding Authorization Letter) from the post abroad, enabling her to return to the US for fingerprinting, obtaining a new I-551 stamp in her passport, and to eventually receive her new green card.

  • Case of S.A.

    We helped a Lottery winner whose case had been pending under Section 221(g) for four months after his interview. Three days before the expiration of the DV program he was issued his immigrant visa.

  • Case of I.B.

    We assisted an applicant overcome a finding of Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) material misrepresentation for allegedly lying about his purpose to visit the United States. An overzealous consular officer permanently barred the applicant from the US. After our request to review the finding, his supervisor overturned the finding and issued to him an H-1B visa.

  • Case of A.M.

    Mr. M indicated in his application form that he planned to visit the US on business for two weeks. He received his visa. Upon his arrival, he ascertained that there were problems with his partner, so he had to hire a lawyer, participate in litigation, and find a new partner. As a result, he spent more than five months in the US. When he returned to his home country and applied for a visa a year later, he was denied under Section 214(b). After we prepared a summary of the exigent circumstances that befell Mr. M and supporting documentation, his application for a new visa was approved.

  • Case of I.G.

    We successfully represented a woman who had been rejected an immigrant visa under the Lottery program because she was deemed to be a potential public charge (Section 212(a)(4)(A)). The consulate would not consider her real estate in Tashkent, Uzbekistan as “liquid”. After the presentation of additional evidence and the intercession of Washington, it issued the visas to her and her family.

  • Case of G.S.

    Mrs. S, a green card holder, was located outside the United States for more than one year because her mother was very sick. We assisted her in her application for a SB-1 Returning Resident Visa. After the visa was granted, she was able to reenter the US and join her two children.

  • Case of I.A. and A.M.

    After being notified that he won the Green Card Lottery, Mr. M married Ms. A. This fact led the consular officer to suspect that their relationship was not a legitimate one, and Mr. M was permanently barred for alien smuggling (Section 212(a)(6)(E)) and Ms. A was permanently barred for committing a material misrepresentation (Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)). They then contacted our firm. We were able to gather substantial documentation showing that they had a serious relationship and were engaged for more than a year before the notification of selection in the Lottery. After review of this evidence, the consular officer rescinded the inadmissibility decisions and issued to them visas — one day before the expiration of the Lottery program.

  • Case of N.K.

    We helped a young female applicant with few ties to her home country (not married, no children, no property) secure a visitor’s visa.

  • Case of S.N.

    Mr. N, a citizen of Armenia, was granted asylum in the US. In order to see his sick brother before he died, he returned to his home country before obtaining a Refugee Travel Document, a document he would need in order to return to the US. After being initially refused, we assisted him in obtaining a RTD while he was located outside the US.

  • Case of I.V.

    We successfully represented a businessman who had been denied a tourist visa to visit his son and the gravesite of his ex-wife in the United States.

  • Case of V.S.

    Mr. S was denied his request for refugee status. On his behalf, we submitted a Request for Reconsideration, pointing out legal and factual errors made in the handling of his case. He was called in for another interview. After a ninety minute interview, the immigration officer granted refugee status to him.

  • Case of N.D.

    After a consular officer erroneously counted an applicant’s time of unlawful presence in the United States, we helped her overcome this finding and have her time of inadmissibility reduced to three years from ten years.

  • Case of M.G.

    Our inquiry to a consulate about the reason for a material misrepresentation finding prompted a consular officer to review the decision, which had been made five years prior, and reverse that decision.

  • Case of G.D.

    Ms. D, a Ukrainian citizen, worked for an American expatriate family in Russia. The US Embassy in Moscow denied her "nanny" visa application to work in the United States because she was unable to document her ties to her home country and because the consular officer did not believe that she met the visa requirements. The American businessman contacted us and we were able to help the nanny obtain the visa.

  • Case of T.L.

    In violation of the rules of the Department of State, a consular officer attempted to require Ms. L’s husband in the United States, who was in L-1 status, to return to Russia before he would process her L-2 application. After we brought this to the attention of Washington, the consular officer issued the visa to her.

  • Case of T.E.

    We helped a consular officer see the "forest through the trees" in a re-application after a denial of a woman whose brother is an elite businessman. Although she was unemployed, which was the basis for the 214(b) denial, she had no need to work because her brother was wealthy and supported her.

  • Case of R.G.

    A green card holder resided abroad for many years and grew tired of maintaining a residence, including paying taxes, in the US. We assisted him in the I-407 process of abandoning his permanent residency status: completing the necessary forms, counseling him on the consequences of his actions, accompanying him to the Embassy to relinquish his green card and assisting him in obtaining a visitors visa.

  • Case of A.R.

    We assisted an American company bring to the U.S. a young single applicant with a previous denial for training on an H-3 visa.

  • Case of M.T.

    In a tragic story (highlighted in an article in Izvestia), a woman became separated from her family because the Embassy lost her police certificates. Her family was able to immigrate, but because the Green Card Lottery program expired for that year, she was no longer able to immigrate due to the Embassy’s negligence. The family had already sold all of its belongings, including their house, in order to immigrate. She retained our firm. On her behalf, we enlisted the support of a senator and submitted an application for humanitarian parole. Finally, she was granted humanitarian parole status, and was able to join her family in the United States and later gain a green card.

  • Case of S.P.

    After a consular officer decided to return an already-approved work visa petition for revocation, we were able to intervene on behalf of the American company petitioner and have the officer’s decision reversed and the visa issued.

  • Case of N.V.

    We assisted a woman in her claim for US citizenship for her son. She was living separately from her husband in her home country; she had an American boyfriend. After we assisted in arranging DNA testing for the child with an accredited laboratory and preparing the paperwork in support of the application for citizenship based on the father’s American citizenship, including his affidavit, the child was issued an American passport.

  • Case of I.B.

    We helped an applicant obtain a nonimmigrant waiver to visit her daughter and grandchildren after she had been accused of alien smuggling. Two years later, we helped her renew the waiver to enable her to continue to visit her family in the US.

  • Case of E.S.

    We successfully had a finding of fraud overturned in an application in which the applicant’s agent submitted a fake diploma to the embassy without her knowledge. We visited the archives of the university from which the applicant graduated and obtained documentation confirming her completion of the coursework twenty years ago. After reviewing the firsthand documentation we presented, the consulate rescinded its finding.

  • Case of M.P.

    We helped a student overcome four previous denials and obtain a student visa.

  • Case of S.A.

    After a consular officer accused an applicant of entering into a sham marriage and permanently barring him, we gathered substantial evidence proving the legitimacy of the marriage. After reviewing the evidence, the consulate reversed its decision.

  • Case of M.D.

    We helped an applicant obtain an immigrant waiver to join her husband in the United States after she had been found to commit a material misrepresentation.

  • Case of G.P.

    A consular officer mistakenly believed that an applicant had spent eight months in the United States, and denied the applicant under 214(b) for residing in the US. In fact, the applicant had only spent four months in the US and after we presented evidence confirming this, she was issued a visa.

  • Case of I.O.

    A former intelligence official was subject to additional administrative processing under 221(g) whenever he applied for a visa. But instead of the processing taking less time as the years passed since the time he worked, the processing took longer. On his behalf, we made inquiries to clarify the reason for the prolonged delay. Within one week, he was issued a new visa.

  • Case of L.L.

    We assisted a first-time applicant receive a B-2 visa to attend the wedding of her nephew in the US, notwithstanding her lack of international travel, her lack of family ties, and the fact that she lived in a poor, rural area of her home country.

  • Case of V.K.

    We represented Mr. K in his claim to US citizenship. Mr. K was born in the US to a Ministry of Foreign Trade official of his home country’s government. Because his father was not on the “blue list” we were able to establish his American citizenship after obtaining a certified copy of his American birth certificate.

  • Case of M.O.

    We helped an applicant obtain an immigrant waiver after falling victim to an incompetent lawyer. She was advised that a departure from the US would not trigger the 10 year bar, but in fact it did. We represented her in her I-601 application to the USCIS, and after its approval, she and her baby were able to join her husband in the US.

  • Case of U.K.

    Mr. K used an abbreviated name in his Diversity Lottery entry, not his legal name. His application for a visa was denied on this basis. We brought to the attention of the consular officer the fact that he has used this abbreviated name in all of his official dealings and in his school documents. The consular officer issued to him an immigrant visa.

  • Case of D.M.

    One of the formal requirements for the Diversity Lottery is that the spelling of the surname in the entry match the surname in the passport. Unfortunately for Ms. M., the passport agency improperly spelled her last name in her passport, and she indicated the proper spelling of her surname in her DV entry. She was then denied a visa on this basis. Subsequently, the passport agency rectified its error. We requested the consular officer to re-open her case, and she was issued an immigrant visa just days before the expiration of the DV program.

  • Case of K.A.

    Ms. A was convicted for operating a scale at a market which did not weigh produce correctly. The statute under which she was convicted did not have an intent requirement. So we prepared a Legal Opinion on her behalf arguing that this was not a crime of moral turpitude, or in the alternative, that this crime met the requirements of the petty offense exception. After reviewing the Legal Opinion, the consular officer issued the immigrant visa to Ms. A.

  • Case of F.J.

    Ms. J had completed her final class before her Diversity visa interview, but had not received her high school diploma in time for the interview. The consular officer refused her for not having the equivalent of a high school education at the time of her interview. We pointed out that she had completed her high school education — that it was the education that satisfied the Lottery requirement, not the issuance of the diploma — and therefore satisfied the Lottery requirement at the time of her interview. Upon reconsideration, the consulate re-opened her case and issued to her an immigrant visa.

  • Case of D.S.

    Mr. S. was involved in an unusual case. He was charged with a crime of moral turpitude, a conviction for which would render him inadmissible to the United States. But before going to trial, he was amnestied under a nationwide decree, with the court not making any decision on his guilt. We prepared a Legal Opinion for the consular officer, arguing that because he had not been convicted nor admitted to guilt, that he was not inadmissible. After reviewing our Opinion, the consular officer issued an immigrant visa to Mr. S.

  • Case of M.T.

    Mr. T was convicted of possession of a "dangerous drug" in the US and found inadmissible under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). In a long and complicated case, we strategized with a criminal lawyer about the possibility of vacating his conviction. Upon the motion of the criminal lawyer, the court vacated the conviction and issued a writ of coram nobis. Mr. T pled to a lesser charge, a charge that did not carry a permanent bar. The consulate rescinded the decision and Mr. T was no longer inadmissible.

Case Studies

After Ms. S refused to marry an American citizen, he sent a "poison pen" letter to the police, accusing her of being a spy. She was then called into the consulate, and the consular officer revoked her visa. Ms. S then contacted our firm. We were able to intercede on her behalf and the consular officer issued to her a new 3-year B visa.

Case of A.S.