Case Studies
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.
Case of B.A.
B was an EB-5 investor and had been waiting 5 years for his I-829 condition removal petition to be adjudicated. In the meanwhile, he submitted a naturalization application (N-400). But USCIS refused to schedule his naturalization interview until his I-829 was approved. We filed a mandamus lawsuit against USCIS, and 2 months later, his I-829 petition was approved. A few weeks later, USCIS scheduled his naturalization interview.
Case of S.P.
S was an F-1 student and became a victim of one of the scam OPT companies AzTech, resulting in a decision of inadmissibility under 212(a)(6)(C)(i). He retained us to challenge the finding. We prepared a request for reconsideration, including his declaration and corroborating evidence to reflect that he was unaware that the OPT company was fraudulent and that any misrepresentation was not material. We then submitted it to the Department of Homeland Security. Upon reapplication for a visa, the 6Ci finding was removed and his visa was issued.
Case of A.O.
We had been providing various consultations to naturalized US citizen A over more than 10 years: providing advice on applying for a visitor B-2 visa for his sister; counseling on his parents’ green card cases; and consulting about a relative’s situation after winning the Green Card Lottery. We were able to assist in preparing and reviewing a variety of forms, including DS-160 and DS-260 visa application forms; I-130 immigrant petition; I-485 adjustment of status; I-765 employment authorization; I-131 advance parole travel authorization; and I-864 affidavit of support. In his parents’ case, they were able to obtain their green cards in less than five months.
Case of Z.L.
We filed a Freedom of Information Act request for Z with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE had entered a finding of 212(a)(6)(C)(i) inadmissibility against Z, but Z did not understand the reason. But after nine months, ICE failed to turn over any documents — with no end in sight. So we decided to file a FOIA delay lawsuit. Within a week of filing the lawsuit, ICE turned over more than 20 pages, including the specifics of its allegations against Z.
Case of A.Z.
A’s adult children were in the US, with one of them a US citizen. Her US citizen son filed an immigrant petition for her. After the approval, A went to her immigrant visa interview — and that’s when her problems started. She was found inadmissible under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) for convictions for crimes she claimed that she did not commit. She then contacted us. We argued that her convictions were not for crimes of moral turpitude: one was for a corporate governance violation, the other for negligence. After a long review, the Department of State agreed and removed the inadmissibility. Weeks later, the consular officer issued the IR5 immigrant visa, enabling A to join her children in the United States.