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 After the Court entered its Order, we presented that Order to the consul, who rescinded the 2A decision.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.