Case of K.P.
In a complicated case K was permanently barred from the United States under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) by an overzealous consular officer who accused K of presenting a bogus job confirmation letter in support of his H-1B application. The consular officer even went so far as to compel K to sign a Voluntary Statement DS-5529 that the letter was not authorized, although K believed that it was. The consular officer referred the petition back to USCIS, recommending the revocation of the approval. But rather than acting on the consular officer’s recommendation, USCIS did nothing — and the validity period expired. We called into question the validity of the Voluntary Statement and the determination of the consular officer. After much deliberation, the 6C decision was overturned.
Case of I.K.
Mr. K had been denied a B-2 visa five times under Section 214(b). Unfortunately, he had not been honest in his previous applications about the fact that his sister was located in the U. S. He contacted us, and we brought him "out of the shadows", helping him to "come clean" with the Embassy. We prepared a new application evidencing the bona fides of his business in his home country and his stable family and economic situation there. After extensive review, the Embassy issued to him a B-2 visa.
Case of A.L.
Mrs. L was denied an F-2 visa on two occasions. She sought to join her student husband in the United States. Because such visa refusals are supposed to be "rare" and warranted only when there is a difference in circumstances between the spouses, we challenged these denials. Mrs. L was called in for another interview, and issued the visa.
Case of A.M.
Mr. M applied to a US consulate after his company’s L-1 petition was approved. But rather than process his visa application, the consular officer "sat on" it. The consular officer sought to punish Mr. M because he believed that Mr. M and his family had spent too much time in the US on B visas. Because of the consular inaction, the validity period for the L-1 petition expired and his company had to submit a new petition to USCIS. After the petition was re-approved, Mr. M re-applied for an L-1 visa. This time, the consular officer denied the application. Mr. M then retained our firm, and we brought this to the attention of the Consul General and Washington. After a new interview, Mr. M was issued his L-1 visa.
Case of K.S.
Mr. S had a used car importing business from Germany. At one point the German authorities called him in to question him about his business. He was released without charges being filed. Apparently, information about the investigation was passed along to the American government, which permanently barred him from the US under Section 212(a)(3)(A)(ii) for "unlawful activity". On his behalf, we challenged the finding and eventually the finding was rescinded and he was issued a visa.
Case of K.A.
Ms. A was convicted for operating a scale at a market which did not weigh produce correctly. The statute under which she was convicted did not have an intent requirement. So we prepared a Legal Opinion on her behalf arguing that this was not a crime of moral turpitude, or in the alternative, that this crime met the requirements of the petty offense exception. After reviewing the Legal Opinion, the consular officer issued the immigrant visa to Ms. A.
Case of U.K.
Mr. K used an abbreviated name in his Diversity Lottery entry, not his legal name. His application for a visa was denied on this basis. We brought to the attention of the consular officer the fact that he has used this abbreviated name in all of his official dealings and in his school documents. The consular officer issued to him an immigrant visa.
Case of F.J.
Ms. J had completed her final class before her Diversity visa interview, but had not received her high school diploma in time for the interview. The consular officer refused her for not having the equivalent of a high school education at the time of her interview. We pointed out that she had completed her high school education — that it was the education that satisfied the Lottery requirement, not the issuance of the diploma — and therefore satisfied the Lottery requirement at the time of her interview. Upon reconsideration, the consulate re-opened her case and issued to her an immigrant visa.
Case of D.M.
One of the formal requirements for the Diversity Lottery is that the spelling of the surname in the entry match the surname in the passport. Unfortunately for Ms. M., the passport agency improperly spelled her last name in her passport, and she indicated the proper spelling of her surname in her DV entry. She was then denied a visa on this basis. Subsequently, the passport agency rectified its error. We requested the consular officer to re-open her case, and she was issued an immigrant visa just days before the expiration of the DV program.
Case of D.S.
Mr. S. was involved in an unusual case. He was charged with a crime of moral turpitude, a conviction for which would render him inadmissible to the United States. But before going to trial, he was amnestied under a nationwide decree, with the court not making any decision on his guilt. We prepared a Legal Opinion for the consular officer, arguing that because he had not been convicted nor admitted to guilt, that he was not inadmissible. After reviewing our Opinion, the consular officer issued an immigrant visa to Mr. S.