Case of E.M.
Mr. M was convicted in his home country of Belarus under an archaic provision of the criminal code for “exceeding” his authority in his capacity as a director in his company. The consular officer found that the conviction was for a crime of moral turpitude and permanently barred Mr. M. from the United States under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Mr. M. retained our firm, and we conducted an in-depth analysis of crimes which fall under the purview of the statute in question. We presented our findings and arguments to the lawyers in the State Department, who found that the crime did not constitute a crime of moral turpitude and cancelled the inadmissibility bar.
Case of Y.A.
In a highly unusual case, Mr. A. was a recently-landed immigrant from Uzbekistan who found out that he had won the Diversity Lottery. Because his 21 year old son was stranded in his home country but was included in his Lottery entry, Mr. A. decided to obtain another green card so that his son would be eligible to immigrate as well. The problem arose, first, when he was advised by the Kentucky Consular Center that his son was no longer allowed to immigrate as his dependent because he had turned 21. Later the consulate advised Mr. A. that he was not able to obtain another green card, that he had to petition for his son separately, a process which could take several years. Mr. A. then contacted our firm, and we were able to successfully petition for review of both of these decisions, with the end result that Mr. A. received another green card and his son was allowed to immigrate.
Case of F.J.
After five years in which her sons’ immigrant visa petitions were either pending at the consulate in Lagos, Nigeria under 221(g) or returned to USCIS for petition revocation, Mrs. J contacted our firm. The consulate questioned the legality of her divorce under local law. We immediately contacted the consulate, arranged for a new interview for her sons, and provided additional documentation on her divorce. Within days of the new interview, her sons received immigrant visas.
Case of A.B.
A consular officer found Mr. B. permanently inadmissible to the United States as a drug trafficker (Section 212(a)(2)(C)(i)). The finding was made based on a single piece of evidence: a poison pen letter, apparently from a disgruntled employee. We successfully challenged that decision and the bar to his admissibility was rescinded.
Case of A.C.
Mr. C worked as a teacher at an elementary school in Texas for several years in H-1B status. When he applied to renew his H-1B visa in Mexico City, the consular officer denied him, expressing his belief that Texas should be hiring American teachers. The school district then planned to terminate his contract because of his inability to return to the United States. Our firm brought this to the attention to the Department of State, and the consular officer issued the visa H-1B to Mr. C.
Case of A.S.
After Ms. S refused to marry an American citizen, he sent a "poison pen" letter to the police, accusing her of being a spy. She was then called into the consulate, and the consular officer revoked her visa. Ms. S then contacted our firm. We were able to intercede on her behalf and the consular officer issued to her a new 3-year B visa.
Case of K.R.
Ms. R. was permanently barred by the US Embassy in New Delhi, India for committing a material misrepresentation. She was forced to sign a Voluntary Statement dictated to her by an abusive consular officer and that declaration was used as the basis of the bar. She then contacted us, and we were able to intervene and have the decision overturned.
Case of S.S.
Mrs. S., an Indian national, has worked in California on an H-1B visa for many years. Her husband, who was in H-4 status, returned to India and applied to renew his H-4 visa at the consulate in Chennai. His application was denied under 221(g), and remained pending for more than 7 months. Mrs. S. then retained us, and within a couple of weeks, Mr. S. received his visa and was reunited with his wife in the US.