Case Studies
Case of N.B.
In an epic E-2 visa case taking place over more than two years during the pandemic with 3 visa interviews in two different countries, N had the misfortune of a “double whammy”. The consulate slapped him with two allegations, each of which resulted in a permanent bar to entry to the United States: a crime of moral turpitude (212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)) and a willful, material misrepresentation (212(a)(6)(C)(i)). The crime of moral turpitude accusation was flimsy because the statute relating to the acquisition of data encompassed behavior that was not a crime of moral turpitude. The misrepresentation accusation related to how his DS-160 was completed in addressing the criminal incident. We challenged both decisions. After the crime of moral turpitude finding was removed, we helped prepare N for the visa interview on the misrepresentation issue. After a long, in-depth interview, the consulate removed the misrepresentation finding and issued the E-2 visa to N, finally enabling him to return to the United States.
Case of T.D.
T had a boyfriend in the United States, but Customs and Border Protection became suspicious when she was visiting him often and for long periods of time. Finally, she was stopped and questioned in great detail. CBP revoked her visa, inscribing her visa with 22 CFR 41.122(e)(3); determined that she was inadmissible under Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I); allowed her to withdraw her application for admission; and sent her back to her home country. But CBP did not give her the Record of Sworn Statement (I-867) or the Withdrawal of Application for Admission/Consular Notification (I-275). These documents are obtainable through the Freedom of Information Act process, but the problem is that process can take several months. On T’s behalf, we contacted the airport directly requesting those documents. Within a few days, we received those documents from CBP. The documents helped to clarify her situation and enabled her and her boyfriend to plan their immigration steps going forward.
Case of L.D.
L was extremely frustrated. She is a US citizen. For her husband, she submitted support documents to the National Visa Center 2 years ago, and continued to inquire about the case. But NVC did nothing: her husband’s case just sat there, and as a result, his spousal immigrant visa (IR1) interview was not scheduled and they were separated. Finally, she lost patience and contacted us. She initially wanted to file a mandamus lawsuit, which can be expensive and time consuming. But after consulting with us and discussing her options, she decided to retain us to resolve the delay with NVC management. We quickly reached out to NVC management, and within days, NVC acted on the case. It updated L’s file and appointed the immigrant visa interview for L’s husband.
Case of S.C.
S is a well-respected businessman, but had a DUI conviction many, many years ago and he wanted to visit the United States. But he did not know what to expect when applying for the visa, so he decided to consult with us. We helped prepare him for the interview and advised him of the possibility that he would have to go through a medical exam regarding his alcohol consumption. The Centers for Disease Control have very specific criteria for evaluating substance use disorders, and we discussed these issues. We also covered other possible problems that could be raised at his interview. After a short interview, he was referred for a medical exam. 2 weeks after undergoing the exam, he received his visa.
Case of H.Y.
H, an F-1 student on Curricular Practical Training (CPT), was stopped at the airport, interrogated for hours, had his visa revoked under 22 C.F.R. 41.122(e)(3), and was found to be inadmissible under Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). There were suspicions about the nature of the work that he was engaged in. H contacted us for a consultation. We reviewed the Record of Sworn Statement in Proceedings which contained his interview at the airport; discussed the legal consequences of the incident; assisted him in completing his new DS-160 visa application form, including addressing the airport incident; and prepared him for his new visa interview. After his visa interview and a short 221(g) administrative processing, H received a new student visa and returned to the United States.
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.