Case Studies
Case of O.E.
O’s problem is becoming more and more common: not just consular officers in the Department of State make determinations of inadmissibility, but officials at the Department of Homeland Security do as well: USCIS, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. What makes the DHS-source decisions troublesome is 1) individuals often are not aware of the findings until they are outside the US and apply for a visa and 2) DHS does not have an official appeals procedure. In O’s case, he was not aware that he was inadmissible under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i) until he applied for an immigrant, family-based visa to join his US citizen brother in the US. A year after the consul made the denial decision, his US citizen brother contacted us. Only after we inquired to the consulate did it advise that DHS, not the consular officer, made the inadmissibility decision. We then challenged the DHS determination that O’s previous conviction was for a crime of moral turpitude (a driver’s registration violation), and DHS removed the inadmissibility finding. But O was not home-free at that point: the consul withheld the issuance of the visa, calling into question whether the brothers were actually brothers. O then gathered and we provided photographs dating back to the 1970s of the two brothers, as well as other official documents in which the brothers were listed. Shortly after that, the consul finally issued the immigrant visa.
Case of B.C.
B’s situation shows the draconian nature of the 90 Day “Rule” and how far back the consul will look into a person’s visa history. Nearly two decades ago B traveled to the US to visit his sister and friends. During his visit, his sister asked him to help her at a place that she did volunteer work. This information came to light the next time he sought to enter the US, when CBP stopped him. Although CBP sent him home, it did not accuse him of lying about the nature of his visit when he had previously entered. But that did not stop the consul though. After B was refused a visitor’s visa on standard “lack of ties” grounds (214(b)), B’s US citizen daughter applied for his immigration. And it was at that immigrant visa interview that the consul decided to dig into what happened nearly 20 years ago. The consul imposed a permanent bar on B under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i), finding that B had lied to the CBP officer when he arrived: that his true intent was to work with his sister on a B visa, that he did so within 90 days of his arrival, and this was “proof” that he had misrepresented his intention at the airport when he arrived. B’s daughter then contacted us. We then gathered evidence from his visit nearly 20 years ago to show that his intention at the time of his entry was to see his sister and friends; he did not make any misrepresentation when he arrived; and he did not “work.” After a protracted review of our submission, the 6Ci finding was removed and B received the IR-5 immigrant visa.
Case of T.R.
T was another victim of Andwill. He only learned of the problem after he left the US, when he applied for a new H-1B visa and the consul advised him of a DHS-imposed permanent bar under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). The consul began to process a Section 212(d)(3)(A) nonimmigrant waiver for him. But there were two problems: 1) the processing of a nonimmigrant waiver would take more than 6 months and T was not certain that his employer would wait for him; and 2) T had a potential interest in immigrating to the US in the future and the 6Ci bar would be a permanent obstacle: he would require an immigrant waiver and such waivers are granted only in limited circumstances. So T contacted us. Within a week we were able to prepare and submit his challenge to the permanent bar to the Department of Homeland Security. A month later, we were notified of corrective action. We contacted the consulate and a week later it requested his passport and issued the visa. T was able to successfully return to his job and will have the ability to immigrate if he chooses to do so in the future.
Case of U.R.
U made a Freedom of Information Act request with USCIS for her EB-5 files. But instead of turning over all of her files, USCIS only released some of the files. It stated that there were no more files. We knew that was wrong and contacted USCIS FOIA management. After continued resistance, we escalated our complaint. Finally, USCIS turned over all of the FOIA materials — thousands of pages.
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.