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 R. was revoked.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.
Case of L.N.
L is a talented IT professional. He was employed by an agency in the US, which seconded him to work at a very large US financial institution. During his time in the US, he held an H-1B visa. But when his status expired and he returned to his home country for a new H-1B visa, the consular officer accused him of lying and finding him inadmissible under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). The consulate had contacted the financial company, which denied that L had done any work for them. L and his agency in the US then contacted us. We reached out to the in-house counsel of the financial company, who did an internal investigation. Lo and behold, she found that L had indeed worked on-site at one of the locations of the company and had performed a variety of IT services. The company corrected the error and after additional verification by the consulate, the consular officer rescinded the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) decision and issued L a new H-1B visa.
Case of J.P.
J and her parents lived in the US: her father had an employment visa, and J and her mom had dependent visas. J grew up in the US, going to high school and college in the US. But when she turned 21, she aged out — no longer considered a dependent. She wanted to continue her studies in the US, so she contacted us to discuss her options. She was worried that she would be denied a student visa under 214(b) because her parents were still in the US. We helped prepare her student visa application and for the interview. After a short interview, she was issued the visa.
Case of A.B.
A had been a university student in the US. After graduation, she travelled to the UK, where she studied for a year. She returned to her home country and started working for a bank. She then applied for an MBA program in the US, but was denied an F-1 student visa under Section 214(b). She then contacted us to discuss her denial. Because there were some misunderstandings at the interview and some relevant information that had not been considered, we helped to prepare a new DS-160 for her and conducted a mock interview with her. After she re-applied, she was issued the student visa.
Case of M.G.
M was coerced into making a written “Voluntary Statement” at a US consulate in India regarding her marriage. But the consular officer did not give her a copy of the Statement for her records. She then contacted the consulate after the interview, requesting a copy. The consulate refused, stating that according to “U.S. law” the consulate “cannot share the document”. This was wrong. After we interceded and followed up with the consulate and Washington, the Voluntary Statement was sent to us.
Case of B.A.
It was a mystery to B: why had the consulate in Italy permanently barred her from the United States under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)? We were curious also, because after talking to her in great detail, we could not understand. So we sent a short inquiry to the consulate, only asking for the factual basis of the decision. After not receiving a response, we sent another inquiry. When the consulate refused to respond, we brought this recalcitrance to the attention of Washington and raised the issue of this draconian decision: why did the consulate permanently bar B? After a week, Washington responded that the consulate “carefully” reconsidered its decision and decided to reverse it. The 6C decision was rescinded.
Case of A.Y.
A had graduated with a Bachelor’s Degree in the US. He returned to his home country, and after working there for a year, decided to pursue a Master’s in the US. But when he applied for a student visa, he was denied under Section 214(b). During our consultation, we were able to pinpoint the problem relating to his future work in his home country. We also conducted a mock interview to help him with his confidence and his responses. A week later, he applied for the visa again and this time received it.
Case of R.J.
As Mr. J attempted to board a flight, he was told that his visa had been revoked, but not advised of the reason. He later applied for a visa at a US consulate in his home country of Mexico, but was told that there was a problem due to a flag placed by CBP. He contacted CBP at the border, but it was not helpful, stating that he should reapply for a visa. So he applied for a visa again. Then, he was advised that he was permanently barred from the US under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). But no one would tell him why. Upon our inquiry, we were also stonewalled — in the beginning. The post responded that if he would like to discuss his case, he should apply again. But he had already applied twice — paying the applicable visa fees — yet no one at the consulate deigned to advise him of his alleged misrepresentation. When we brought the apparent discrimination to the attention of the Consul General — other consular posts around the world regularly inform applicants for the reason for an accusation of willful, material misrepresentation, but this young Mexican applicant was not — the Consul General finally responded: the decision was an error due to an internal government misunderstanding. Because there had been no willful, material misrepresentation, she rescinded the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) decision and the lifetime bar.