Case Studies

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.

Case of T.A.

T had been denied three times under 214(b) by the Embassy to travel to the US for medical treatment and cosmetic surgery. Her case was complicated because she was single, young, with no children, and the doctor’s office failed to confirm her appointment when the Embassy inquired. We gathered her personal documentation reflecting her ties and ability to pay the cost of the surgery, as well as an explanation from the doctor about the miscommunication. After reviewing her new application, the Embassy promptly issued to her a 10-year, multi-entry B visa.

Case of N.V. and I.V.

The Vs were a prominent couple: he was a famous ex-hockey player and she was the Director of a large retail outlet. So when they applied for visas to visit their permanent resident daughter, they thought they would receive the visas without any problems. Unfortunately, they thought wrong. Their daughter had not returned to her home country after visiting the US as a student; while a student, she met a US citizen whom she later married. So the consul decided to punish her parents under 214(b), notwithstanding their overwhelming familial, social and economic ties to their home country, including grandchildren, elderly parents, well-paying jobs, and substantial property interests. We then interceded on their behalf, and they were able to receive visas.

Case of Z.R.

Mr. R’s parents won the Green Card Lottery while he was under the age of 21. He immigrated with his family to the US. Later, he returned to his home country, fell in love with Z and married her. Because he was spending the majority of his time outside the US, he was unable to accumulate enough time as a permanent resident to become a US citizen. US immigration law imposes quotas on spouses of green card holders; as a result, long waits to immigrate to the United States are the norm. So Z decided to enter into a sham marriage with an unmarried Lottery winner in order to “expedite” her immigration. The consular officer found out about the sham marriage and permanently barred her for her misrepresentation (Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)). With our assistance, Mr. R then initiated the process of immigration for his wife and their two children. While the process of immigration for his children was straightforward, we had to prepare an immigrant waiver application for his wife based on the extreme hardship Mr. R would suffer in the event of a denial. After a 6-month review process, USCIS approved the immigrant waiver.

Case of K.P.

In a complicated case K was permanently barred from the United States under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) by an overzealous consular officer who accused K of presenting a bogus job confirmation letter in support of his H-1B application. The consular officer even went so far as to compel K to sign a Voluntary Statement DS-5529 that the letter was not authorized, although K believed that it was. The consular officer referred the petition back to USCIS, recommending the revocation of the approval. But rather than acting on the consular officer’s recommendation, USCIS did nothing — and the validity period expired. We called into question the validity of the Voluntary Statement and the determination of the consular officer. After much deliberation, the 6C decision was overturned.

Case of I.K.

Mr. K had been denied a B-2 visa five times under Section 214(b). Unfortunately, he had not been honest in his previous applications about the fact that his sister was located in the U. S. He contacted us, and we brought him "out of the shadows", helping him to "come clean" with the Embassy. We prepared a new application evidencing the bona fides of his business in his home country and his stable family and economic situation there. After extensive review, the Embassy issued to him a B-2 visa.

Case of A.L.

Mrs. L was denied an F-2 visa on two occasions. She sought to join her student husband in the United States. Because such visa refusals are supposed to be "rare" and warranted only when there is a difference in circumstances between the spouses, we challenged these denials. Mrs. L was called in for another interview, and issued the visa.

Case of A.M.

Mr. M applied to a US consulate after his company’s L-1 petition was approved. But rather than process his visa application, the consular officer "sat on" it. The consular officer sought to punish Mr. M because he believed that Mr. M and his family had spent too much time in the US on B visas. Because of the consular inaction, the validity period for the L-1 petition expired and his company had to submit a new petition to USCIS. After the petition was re-approved, Mr. M re-applied for an L-1 visa. This time, the consular officer denied the application. Mr. M then retained our firm, and we brought this to the attention of the Consul General and Washington. After a new interview, Mr. M was issued his L-1 visa.