Case of T.Z.
T won the DV-Lottery, and was excited to have the opportunity to immigrate with her son to the US, where her mom and sister were located. But the consul had other plans. T had been denied student visas on 3 different occasions under 214(b) more than 10 years prior. But now the consul focused on one of those applications. He alleged that T had indicated at that time that she had not graduated from high school. The consul not only denied her and her son’s DV Lottery applications, but imposed a lifetime ban on T under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). This did not make sense because she had graduated from high school by that time. In fact, she was applying for a student visa then to attend university in the US, i.e., one of the requirements for enrolment was high school graduation. We gathered her documents confirming her educational background, and after a review, the 6Ci refusal was removed, and her and your young son’s Lottery visas were issued.
Case of S.P.
S’s case presented a smorgasbord of issues: various citizenships, name changes, mistakes in statutory documents, and quirky local laws. This did not hurt S over the years: he received many visas and travelled to the US numerous times. But recently, when he sought entry into the US, his problems started: the focus seemed to be on his newly-acquired citizenship and his ability to use ESTA. CBP refused his entry under Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and referred him back to his country of residence to apply for a visa. But when he did, the Embassy took it one step further: accusing him of making a willful, material misrepresentation under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). We did not agree, and challenged the decision of the consul. After a brief review, the decision was overturned.
Case of V.S.
V was a very successful businessman with a clean visa history, dating back more than a decade. After many years of working with his partner, he left the business on less-than-friendly terms, starting his own business. Needless to say, he was stunned when he was charged with tax fraud in his role as a top executive for that former company. After some discussions and taking advantage of a provision in the local law, he paid the claimed deficiency without admitting any guilt or having the criminal case proceed to trial. But the court case triggered a consular investigation and a finding of permanent inadmissibility under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). V then contacted us. After doing a deep dive into the local law and consulting with his local lawyer, we came to the conclusion that the consul had been mistaken: while the tax evasion was a crime of moral turpitude, there was no “admission of guilt” or “conviction”. We then raised these issues with the consul and the Department of State. After some time, they agreed and removed Mr. S’s 2AiI ban.
Case of O.A.
O and her husband lived a comfortable life in their home country and frequently travelled abroad. On one of her visits to the US, she gave birth to their child. Importantly, she had received her visitor B-1/B-2 visa prior to the implementation of the Trump Birth Tourism rule in January 2020. But that didn’t stop a consul from trying to apply the rule retroactively to her, in blatant violation of the rule. The punishment? A permanent bar from the United States under 212(a)(6)(C)(i). But after O contacted us, we were able to represent her in arguing the erroneous application of the rule to her. After protracted review, the consul rescinded the 6Ci decision.
Case of A.B.
A won the DV–Lottery, but her luck ran out when she ran into the “wrong” consul. At her visa interview, the consul drew a triangle and demanded that she calculate the number of degrees in one of the angles. A was confused — she had graduated high school and so met the requirements for the Diversity Visa. (In fact, she was a university student.) But she didn’t know she was going to be tested from her high school math class! She was unable to answer the question. She was then refused under Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for not meeting the minimum education qualifications. Compounding her problem, there was less than a month remaining to the expiration of the DV program. After she contacted us, we immediately contacted Washington, alerting them to the consul exceeding his authority by imposing these academic checks. After a brief review, the visa was issued a week before the deadline.
Case of K.M.
Ms. M was stopped at a land border crossing with Mexico many years ago. As a result of that detention, her visa was cancelled, but she was not given any documentation. After that, her visa applications were continuously denied, but she did not understand the reason. So we did a FOIA request for her, and were able to obtain the detailed CBP documentation of the encounter at the border. We were able to advise her for her next visa application and she was able to receive a new visa.
Case of L.N.
Mr. N was stopped at an airport in the US. He was planning to spend substantial time in the US and this aroused suspicion for CBP. The CBP inspector then proceeded to ask him a lot of questions, including about drug use. At the end of the encounter, Mr. N’s visa was cancelled under 22 CFR 41.122(e)(3) and he withdrew his application for admission. The problem was that he was not given the Record of Sworn Statement, and could not recall how he answered certain questions during the interrogation. We then helped him contact the airport, which turned over the Record of Sworn Statement.
Case of V. R.
The I-129 L-1 petition approval of Mr. R. was revoked. The consul officer had questions about the existence of the business and Mr. R’s intentions, recommending the revocation of the approval of the I-129 petition. In response to the USCIS Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR), his company filed a reply, but USCIS decided to revoke the I-129 petition approval. Mr. R then contacted us. We filed an appeal with the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office, and after it was approved, we provided him support with his visa application process, ending with the issuance of his L-1 visa.
Case of A.S.
Ms. S was stopped at an airport in the US and had her phone checked. Because of some questionable text messages and photographs on her phone, she was detained and interrogated. She had her visa cancelled, with the CBP officer inscribing 22 CFR 41.122(e)(3) on her visa. She withdrew her application for admission and returned to her home country. Unfortunately, she was not given the CBP Sworn Statement and other documents related to the encounter. She contacted our firm, and we did a Freedom of Information Act request with Customs and Border Protection. At first, CBP did not turn over the documents from the airport encounter. We filed a FOIA appeal, and within one week of filing the appeal, we received the requested documents, including the I-275 Report of Consular Notification, I-867A Record of Sworn Statement in Proceedings, travel log, various TECS documents, and I-213 Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien. These documents enabled us to understand and explain the consequences from the airport encounter to her and plan a future visa application.
Case of A.F.
Mr. F was afraid. He was charged with a serious crime, but was able to plea bargain it down to a disorderly conduct. Still, he was worried that he was inadmissible to the United States and would not be able to immigrate along with his children. He said that he was losing sleep and was nervous and anxious for several months. After Mr. F. engaged us for a consultation, we were able to do a “deep dive” on his case and the statute involved. We came to the conclusion that he did not have a conviction for nor admit to a crime of moral turpitude, and so he was not inadmissible. This gave Mr. F peace of mind, and he was able to successfully complete his immigration process and obtain green cards for him and his children.