Case Studies
Case of I.G.
We successfully represented a woman who had been rejected an immigrant visa under the Lottery program because she was deemed to be a potential public charge (Section 212(a)(4)(A)). The consulate would not consider her real estate in Tashkent, Uzbekistan as “liquid”. After the presentation of additional evidence and the intercession of Washington, it issued the visas to her and her family.
Case of S.A.
We helped a Lottery winner whose case had been pending under Section 221(g) for four months after his interview. Three days before the expiration of the DV program he was issued his immigrant visa.
Case of I.B.
We assisted an applicant overcome a finding of Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) material misrepresentation for allegedly lying about his purpose to visit the United States. An overzealous consular officer permanently barred the applicant from the US. After our request to review the finding, his supervisor overturned the finding and issued to him an H-1B visa.
Case of G.B.
Mr. B was an amateur golfer who spent substantial time in the US. When he applied to receive a new visa, he was denied under Section 214(b) because he was “spending too much time” in the US and it was unclear how he was supporting himself. We prepared documentation evidencing Mr. B’s finances, and reminded the consulate that the applied-for visa status permitted prolonged stays in the US for an athlete such as Mr. B. He received a new visa.
Case of T.K.
While she was abroad, her friend in the US sent the new green card of Ms. K to her by express mail. The green card was lost. We helped Ms. K apply for a new green card by submitting an I-90 application and receive a Transportation Letter (Boarding Authorization Letter) from the post abroad, enabling her to return to the US for fingerprinting, obtaining a new I-551 stamp in her passport, and to eventually receive her new green card.
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.