Case of T.B.
T was in the US as Work Travel participant — and was caught shoplifting various items from different stores. Unfortunately, he was charged with several counts of shoplifting, and because he had to leave the US, accepted the charges. As a result, he had more than one conviction and did not qualify for the petty offense exception. But when he applied for a visa, he was found inadmissible not only for committing a crime of moral turpitude, but under the “multiple convictions” provision of the Immigration and National Act — Section 212(a)(2)(B). However, this provision only applies if the aggregate sentence for multiple convictions totaled at least five years (e.g., for one crime sentenced to four years, for another — 1 year). This was not T’s situation. We brought this to the attention of a consular manager, who corrected this error. We then represented T in his I-601 waiver application under Section 212(h) of the INA. We were able to show that his US citizen mother would have experienced extreme hardship in the event of T’s denial, and USCIS approved the application.
Case of M.A.
M needed a visa consultation. 5 years ago she was denied a visa under Section 214(b), but since then her circumstances changed. She acquired a new citizenship and moved to a new, much more stable country. She got married, had two children, and held a stable job as an accountant. We helped her prepare her DS-160 application form and conducted a mock visa interview with her and her husband. After a brief interview, she and her husband were issued new B-2 visas.
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 After the Court entered its Order, we presented that Order to the consul, who rescinded the 2A decision.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 undertook a Freedom of Information Act with USCIS, obtaining consular materials which served as the basis for the decision of a “sham divorce”: past photos of the couple posted on social media. 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 argued that she should not have been subject to the 6ci decision. In the alternative, we argued that her US citizen mother would be subject to extreme hardship in the event of denial of the I-601 waiver application. After approval, U was able to join her mother in the United States.