Case Studies
Case of A.S.
Upon inquiry to the consulate, we learned that a consular officer mistakenly believed that the applicant was a mechanic and therefore denied him under Section 214(b) because his job was viewed as a weak tie to his home country. In fact, the applicant was the owner and general manager of a service station. Upon presentation of additional evidence, he was issued a visa.
Case of A.T.
A consular officer viewed the US mailing address used by a Lottery winner as suspicious and delayed the processing of the case. We called into question what appeared to be a fishing expedition, and soon thereafter, less than one month before the expiration of the Lottery program for that year, the visas were issued to the applicant and his family.
Case of A.M.
Mr. M’s I-601 immigrant waiver application and Request for Reconsideration were denied. He was permanently barred from the US for a material misrepresentation in obtaining a visa to be present for the birth of his child in the United States. As a result of the bar, he was living with his two small US citizen daughters in his home country, while his wife worked in the US and visited the family every two months. We submitted an appeal to the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office showing the extreme hardship that the family was dealing with as a result of the separation. After reviewing the evidence, the AAO approved the appeal, and Mr. M and his children were re-united with Mrs. M in the US.
Case of R.B.
The applicant was a dual national — a citizen-resident of one country, in which the maximum visa validity was two years, and a holder of a second passport she legally acquired through the second passport program of St. Kitts (St. Christopher and Nevis), which allowed for ten-year visas. We were able to help in educating the consulate about the legitimacy of the second passport program, and she was issued a ten-year visa.
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.