Case Studies
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 The 6C decision was rescinded.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 J attempted to board a flight, he was told that his visa had been revoked, but not advised of the reason.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.
Case of A.B.
A.B.’s immigration application was pending for more than 3 years when he and his employer in the US decided to file a mandamus lawsuit. After we filed the lawsuit, the government made numerous attempts to dismiss the lawsuit, such as citing to the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, and change the court venue. However, after our briefing, the Court found that it had jurisdiction over the case and found the government’s delay to be unreasonable. It decided that the consulate had to make a decision within 60 days, and because the delay was unjustified, found that the government should compensate the plaintiffs for legal fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Case of M.T.
M was shocked. He was a citizen and resident of a Visa Waiver Program country and had traveled to the US for many years on his Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) without any problems. Out of the blue, Customs and Border Protection cancelled his ESTA and advised that he needed a visa to travel to the United States. When he applied for a B visitor visa, he was asked some vague questions about a relationship and whether he knew of anyone who may not want him to return to the US. When he did not answer to the satisfaction of the consular officer, he was denied under Section 214(b). After we contacted the consular post on M’s behalf and suggested that jilted ill-wishers/poison-pen letter writers should not have “veto power” over entry to the United States, M submitted a new application and was issued a B visitor visa.
Case of Z.G.
Z was found to have committed a willful, material misrepresentation in a visa application that she had submitted more than 7 years previously. We submitted an I-601 waiver application on her behalf, arguing that her US citizen fiancée would experience extreme hardship if he moved to her home country. He would have to leave his job and family in the United States, and endure the difficulties of living in Z’s country. After a protracted review process, USCIS approved the application.
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.