Case Studies

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.

Case of F.N.

F is a US citizen. He had left the Army after a posting abroad and re-located to the US. He wanted to expedite the processing of his wife’s immigrant visa. We assisted with substantiating his expedite request and correcting documentation for the National Visa Center. Shortly thereafter, his wife’s case was transferred to the Embassy; she went through her interview; and the consul issued her IR1 immigrant visa.

Case of T.M.

At the time T “won” the DV Lottery, he was in a customary marriage. He then legalized his marriage so that his wife would be able to immigrate with him. But the consular officer had other ideas. Noticing that the marriage was a “pop-up” marriage — entered into after being selected as a winner in the DV Lottery — the consular officer accused them of entering into a sham marriage. T was accused of “alien smuggling” and permanently barred under Section 212(a)(6)(E). Fast forward 10 years. T didn’t think too much about the situation until he applied for a visitor visa. By then he had divorced his wife and remarried. At his visa interview he was denied a visa again for alien smuggling. He then contacted our firm. There is no statute of limitations on challenging a wrong finding of inadmissibility, so we helped him apply for a new visa and request reconsideration of the alien smuggling allegation. We assisted in preparing evidence of the genuineness of his marriage from 10 years prior and in completing his DS-160. At his interview, he was questioned about his previous marriage. Three days later, the inadmissibility was removed and he received the visa.

Case of E.T.

E was like many, believing that an expungement of a previous criminal conviction meant that there were no visa or immigration consequences. But she was wrong — and as a result did not believe or understand that her father required a waiver for his conviction of a crime of moral turpitude. After a consultation, we were able to correct her misconception and provide a road map for her in applying for the immigration waiver for him.

Case of M.K.

An acquaintance of M’s had "thrown him under the bus," telling a CBP officer that M had hired him illegally to do some technical work for him. As a result, CBP entered a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding against M, which M only found out about when he applied for a new H-1B visa in his home country. But the acquaintance was merely trying to "save his own skin" from further interrogation from CBP. We were able to prepare a Motion to Reconsider on behalf of M, as well as supporting documents including declarations. After a brief review period, CBP removed M’s finding of inadmissibility, and the consulate issued the visa to M. Upon his return to the US, M did not have any problems at the port of entry. As a result, he was able to keep his well-paying job in the United States and continue his climb up the career ladder.

Case of J.M.

J was married to a US citizen expatriate and the couple had a US citizen child. The couple had been traveling back and forth to the US over the course of many years, but because J had an elderly mother and lived very comfortably in his home country in Europe, he had no interest in immigrating to the United States or obtaining a green card. And so it came as a shock to him when he was denied a B visa under Section 214(b) and ESTA two times each. He contacted us for a consultation and we were able to provide guidance to him on how to overcome the visa refusals. On re-application, he received a new 10-year B visa.