Case Studies

Case of K.S.

K and E are husband and wife and filed for naturalization at the same time. But while E was interviewed and sworn in as a US citizen within 9 months of submitting her application, K’s application was not acted upon. He submitted many inquiries to USCIS, but still no interview was appointed for him. But after we filed a mandamus lawsuit, within days, he was scheduled an interview and later naturalized.

Case of W.A.

Mrs. A was permanently barred from the US and stranded in her home country. Her husband had successfully applied for asylum in the United States and her children had immigrated as a result of I-730 petitions. But a consul found that because she had been previously refused under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for committing a willful, material misrepresentation 5 years prior, that she was not eligible for a boarding foil. We contacted the consular manager at the embassy and alerted her to the mistake made by the consul, that beneficiaries of I-730 are not subject to the same rules of admissibility as usual immigrants. The manager corrected the error and issued the boarding foil to Mrs. A, allowing her to enter the US and join her family — less than 3 weeks before air travel was suspended because of the pandemic.

Case of A.B.

In a case that could have ended tragically, Ms. B received an immigrant visa to join her US citizen son in the United States based on his I-130 petition. But she was unable to use her visa before the onset of the pandemic, and the US Embassy in her home country refused to issue a new one until it re-opened. As a result she was stranded in her home country — where the pandemic raged. We then applied for humanitarian parole for her — and it was granted. The Embassy then issued to her a boarding document, and she was able to move to the United States. After her arrival, we submitted a new I-130 petition, as well as an I-485 adjustment of status package. After 6 months, the petition and application was approved, and she received her permanent green card.

Case of C.P.

C is a world-famous scientist. But when he and his wife traveled to visit his son and later changed his status, he was accused by the consular officer of committing a willful, material misrepresentation under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). The consul alleged that he violated the “30/60 day rule” — having a preconceived intent to engage in work upon his arrival to the United States and then doing so. As a result, the consul permanently barred him. Neither USCIS nor CBP had made such an allegation, but that did not stop the consul. After we gathered substantial evidence tracking his activity during his first two months after his arrival in the US, we were able to show that he had engaged in legitimate visitor activity after his arrival and had not unlawfully engaged in employment while in B status. The decision to permanently bar him was then rescinded.

Case of N.T.

N was a famous coach in his home country. But in his youth, he had smuggled contraband across the border — and was caught. We represented him in applying for a Section 212(h)(1)(A)(i) waiver, which is permitted when the activity in question took place more than 15 years ago and the applicant is not a danger to the US and has been rehabilitated. We were able to demonstrate that over the course of those 15 years, N had shown himself to be an upstanding citizen, rehabilitated, and a coach renowned country-wide. After 5 months, USCIS approved the I-601 waiver application, and he was able to join his wife in the United States.

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).