Case Studies
Case of F.N.
F is a US citizen. He had left the Army after a posting abroad and re-located to the US. He wanted to expedite the processing of his wife’s immigrant visa. We assisted with substantiating his expedite request and correcting documentation for the National Visa Center. Shortly thereafter, his wife’s case was transferred to the Embassy; she went through her interview; and the consul issued her IR1 immigrant visa.
Case of T.M.
At the time T “won” the DV Lottery, he was in a customary marriage. He then legalized his marriage so that his wife would be able to immigrate with him. But the consular officer had other ideas. Noticing that the marriage was a “pop-up” marriage — entered into after being selected as a winner in the DV Lottery — the consular officer accused them of entering into a sham marriage. T was accused of “alien smuggling” and permanently barred under Section 212(a)(6)(E). Fast forward 10 years. T didn’t think too much about the situation until he applied for a visitor visa. By then he had divorced his wife and remarried. At his visa interview he was denied a visa again for alien smuggling. He then contacted our firm. There is no statute of limitations on challenging a wrong finding of inadmissibility, so we helped him apply for a new visa and request reconsideration of the alien smuggling allegation. We assisted in preparing evidence of the genuineness of his marriage from 10 years prior and in completing his DS-160. At his interview, he was questioned about his previous marriage. Three days later, the inadmissibility was removed and he received the visa.
Case of E.T.
E was like many, believing that an expungement of a previous criminal conviction meant that there were no visa or immigration consequences. But she was wrong — and as a result did not believe or understand that her father required a waiver for his conviction of a crime of moral turpitude. After a consultation, we were able to correct her misconception and provide a road map for her in applying for the immigration waiver for him.
Case of M.K.
An acquaintance of M’s had "thrown him under the bus," telling a CBP officer that M had hired him illegally to do some technical work for him. As a result, CBP entered a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding against M, which M only found out about when he applied for a new H-1B visa in his home country. But the acquaintance was merely trying to "save his own skin" from further interrogation from CBP. We were able to prepare a Motion to Reconsider on behalf of M, as well as supporting documents including declarations. After a brief review period, CBP removed M’s finding of inadmissibility, and the consulate issued the visa to M. Upon his return to the US, M did not have any problems at the port of entry. As a result, he was able to keep his well-paying job in the United States and continue his climb up the career ladder.
Case of J.M.
J was married to a US citizen expatriate and the couple had a US citizen child. The couple had been traveling back and forth to the US over the course of many years, but because J had an elderly mother and lived very comfortably in his home country in Europe, he had no interest in immigrating to the United States or obtaining a green card. And so it came as a shock to him when he was denied a B visa under Section 214(b) and ESTA two times each. He contacted us for a consultation and we were able to provide guidance to him on how to overcome the visa refusals. On re-application, he received a new 10-year B visa.
Case of C.A.
C felt like he and his lawyer were being taken on an endless carousel ride by the National Visa Center. USCIS had approved his I-130 petition for his wife. But when his case reached the National Visa Center for the consular processing of his wife’s immigrant visa application, everything ground to a halt. First, NVC was not satisfied with his I-864 affidavit of support, saying that his income level did not suffice, although he had more than enough assets to meet the legal requirements. Then, after receiving the response, NVC demanded that he find a joint sponsor. 5 months had gone by, and C was no closer to being reunited with his wife. C then contacted us. We immediately reached an NVC supervisor, pointing out the errors in NVC’s handling of C’s case. Within 48 hours, C’s case was “documentarily qualified”, approved for transfer to the embassy.
Case of M.A.
M was once bitten, twice shy. His first L-1 petition was referred back to USCIS for revocation by a consular officer. Two years later, USCIS approved a new L-1 petition for him. But this time, he decided that he was going to minimize his risk at the consular stage. He first contacted us for a consultation to help prepare him for the L-1A visa interview. When the consular officer requested additional documents and temporarily refused his application under 221(g), M retained us to represent him in his dealings with the consulate. We prepared the response to the consular officer and continuously followed up. Shortly thereafter, the consulate issued to M the three-year L-1A visa.
Case of F.R.
F was a very successful businessman who had traveled to the US on numerous occasions. But he was shocked when his business partner wrote a “poison-pen” letter to the consulate, leading to the revocation of his E-2 visa. His B visa was still valid, but when he showed up at the border as a visitor, CBP revoked his B visa and denied his entry under Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i). F then applied for a new E-2 visa, but it was denied under Section 214(b). But that wasn’t the worst of it: to learn more about his situation, he did a Freedom of Information Act request. Lo and behold, the FOIA materials reflected a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) misrepresentation finding of permanent inadmissibility. F then contacted us. We first contacted the consular office, which acknowledged the revocation of the E-2 visa and 214(b) decision, but confirmed that it had not made a misrepresentation finding. We then reached out to CBP. After a review, CBP acknowledged that it had made the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding and admitted that it had made the decision in error. CBP then removed the finding of inadmissibility.
Case of Z.E.
Z had been spending a lot of time in the US. When he returned back to the US on ESTA, he was stopped at the airport and Customs and Border Protection questioned him in-depth. Z was young, single, and did not hold permanent employment in his home country. CBP cancelled his ESTA and denied his entry under Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i). With this black mark on his record and a subsequent visa denial under Section 214(b), Z contacted us two years later. He had settled in a third country, had a serious American girlfriend, set up a small business, and established himself. He wanted to travel to the US to visit his girlfriend’s family. First, we reviewed his Record of Sworn Statement (I-877) and then we helped to strategize with Z: when would be the best time to apply; how could he strengthen his ties; how can he present his case after having the black mark on his record? We helped him complete his DS-160. After a brief interview, Z was granted the B-2 visa.
Case of S.Y.
S’ conditional permanent residency was dragging on and on and on. Instead of 2 years, her conditional status entered its 7th year — nearly 5 years since she submitted an I-829 petition for the removal of her condition as an investor in the EB-5 program. But she was afraid to file a lawsuit because she thought that USCIS might retaliate against her for doing so. After allaying her concerns, we filed the mandamus lawsuit. Within 30 days, USCIS approved her petition.