Case Studies

Case of L.S.

L attended his immigrant visa interview to join his wife in the United States and was shocked to learn that he was being refused under Section 212(a)(2)(C): the consular officer had “reason to believe” that L was a drug trafficker or assisting one. According to L, the only run-in with the law that he ever had was more than 25 years ago when the Drug Enforcement Agency targeted a co-tenant in the apartment that they were living. On L’s behalf, we conducted a Freedom of Information Act request, and were able to obtain all of the documents the DEA maintained on L. After we presented this information to the Department of State along with a request to overturn the decision, the consular officer issued the immigrant visa to L.

Case of U.M.

After many years of suffering physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her husband, U finally divorced him. She later met a US citizen, and after their relationship developed, he proposed to her. He then submitted a K-1 fiancée petition for her. After the approval, U attended her K-1 visa interview, but she was denied by a consular officer. The consul accused her of executing a sham divorce with her ex-husband and entering into a bogus fiancée relationship with the US citizen with a view towards gaining status in the US and later petitioning for her ex-husband. She was permanently barred from the United States under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). So when her US citizen mother applied to immigrate U, she was denied and required an immigrant waiver. We then undertook a Freedom of Information Act with USCIS, obtaining consular materials which served as the basis for the decision of a “sham divorce”: past photos of the couple posted on social media. We then documented the abuse at the hands of her ex-husband; the bona fides and legitimacy of her relationship with the US citizen; and argued that she should not have been subject to the 6ci decision. In the alternative, we argued that her US citizen mother would be subject to extreme hardship in the event of denial of the I-601 waiver application. After approval, U was able to join her mother in the United States.

Case of R.J.

US citizen R and his out-of-wedlock 19-year old son J had submitted DNA tests in support of R’s immigrant petition. USCIS approved the petition. Yet when J went to the consulate for his immigrant visa interview, the approval of that petition and the DNA results from an officially accredited laboratory in the US were not sufficient to convince the consular officer to issue the immigrant visa to J. The consul insisted that J change his surname to his father’s surname, and temporarily refused the visa under Section 221(g). After more than 2 years of dealing with local bureaucracy in trying to get his son’s name changed, R contacted us. We brought this to the attention of a consular supervisor and requested reconsideration. Specifically, we pointed to the fact that there is no legal requirement that a petitioned-for child have the same surname as the US citizen. We also presented overwhelming evidence of the father-child relationship and their attempts over 2 years to get J’s surname changed. In short order, the immigrant visa was issued to J.

Case of Y.M.

Y is a US citizen. Her father’s immigrant visa application was denied under Section 212(a)(4); he was deemed to be a potential public charge. Y approached and consulted with our firm. We assisted her US citizen brother in filling in an I-864 affidavit of support as a joint sponsor, helped to prepare supporting financial and personal documentation, and submitted the documents to the Embassy. Y’s husband received the visa promptly and joined Y in time for the holidays.

Case of R.T.

R was a young professional in his home country who had previously studied in the United States. He had also visited as a tourist. At some point, he was accused of committing a willful, material misrepresentation and permanently barred from the United States. However, it was not clear which US government agency had made the accusation; when it initially made the accusation; and why it had made the accusation. Rather than engage in a guessing game, we reached out on R’s behalf to the consulate which had recently denied his visa and asked for an explanation. Upon receiving our inquiry, the consulate re-opened and reviewed R’s case and after a couple of weeks rescinded the decision. R then applied for another B visa and received it.

Case of T.D.

T had a green card but preferred to live in her home country. She wanted to keep her green card, but did not want to travel to or live in the US. So she arranged for false entry stamps in her passport to “confirm” her travels to the US and maintain her US status. Upon discovery, her green card was taken from her and she was permanently barred from the US under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). Many years later, T wanted to visit her daughters in the US and required a nonimmigrant waiver to do so. She approached our firm, and we were able to prepare a nonimmigrant waiver package in support of her application. After a long and in-depth interview, the consular officer recommended approval, and three months later, the Department of Homeland Security concurred. She was granted a 5 year waiver, with a multi-entry B visa.

Case of L.M.

Ms. M was denied a visa two times to visit her daughter and newly-born grandson in the United States. Her daughter had arrived in the US on an exchange visa and remained in the US after its expiration before marrying an American citizen. The consular officers denied Ms. M’s visa applications because her daughter had stayed in the US beyond the term of her original visa. After retaining our firm, Ms. M was able to successfully obtain a B-2 visa and visit her daughter and grandson.

Case of D.B.

Ms. B is married to an American man. She had been permanently barred from the United States by a consular officer and advised that she needed a waiver. The standard for granting a waiver — to prove that the American citizen would be subjected to extreme hardship in the event of denial — is a difficult standard to meet. Instead of submitting a waiver application, we challenged the finding that she had committed a crime of moral turpitude as erroneous. After review of our submission by the Advisory Opinion Division of the Visa Office in Washington, the finding was overturned and she was able to join her husband in the US.

Case of K.U. and R.U.

We represented two children, a brother and sister 11 and 8 years old, in helping them obtain humanitarian parole status after being denied visitor visas. This status enabled them to join their mother, who has a green card, in the United States, without having to wait four years. We successfully renewed their parole in the US and later, adjusted their status to permanent residents.

Case of L.M.

We successfully assisted a woman obtain a tourist visa after she had been denied a visa on eight occasions, dating back more than 15 years. She was denied in part because she had given birth in the US and the cost of the delivery was paid for by the state. After reimbursing the state for her expenses incurred, she received a visa.