Case of K.S.
Mr. S had a used car importing business from Germany. At one point the German authorities called him in to question him about his business. He was released without charges being filed. Apparently, information about the investigation was passed along to the American government, which permanently barred him from the US under Section 212(a)(3)(A)(ii) for "unlawful activity". On his behalf, we challenged the finding and eventually the finding was rescinded and he was issued a visa.
Case of K.A.
Ms. A was convicted for operating a scale at a market which did not weigh produce correctly. The statute under which she was convicted did not have an intent requirement. So we prepared a Legal Opinion on her behalf arguing that this was not a crime of moral turpitude, or in the alternative, that this crime met the requirements of the petty offense exception. After reviewing the Legal Opinion, the consular officer issued the immigrant visa to Ms. A.
Case of U.K.
Mr. K used an abbreviated name in his Diversity Lottery entry, not his legal name. His application for a visa was denied on this basis. We brought to the attention of the consular officer the fact that he has used this abbreviated name in all of his official dealings and in his school documents. The consular officer issued to him an immigrant visa.
Case of F.J.
Ms. J had completed her final class before her Diversity visa interview, but had not received her high school diploma in time for the interview. The consular officer refused her for not having the equivalent of a high school education at the time of her interview. We pointed out that she had completed her high school education — that it was the education that satisfied the Lottery requirement, not the issuance of the diploma — and therefore satisfied the Lottery requirement at the time of her interview. Upon reconsideration, the consulate re-opened her case and issued to her an immigrant visa.
Case of D.M.
One of the formal requirements for the Diversity Lottery is that the spelling of the surname in the entry match the surname in the passport. Unfortunately for Ms. M., the passport agency improperly spelled her last name in her passport, and she indicated the proper spelling of her surname in her DV entry. She was then denied a visa on this basis. Subsequently, the passport agency rectified its error. We requested the consular officer to re-open her case, and she was issued an immigrant visa just days before the expiration of the DV program.
Case of D.S.
Mr. S. was involved in an unusual case. He was charged with a crime of moral turpitude, a conviction for which would render him inadmissible to the United States. But before going to trial, he was amnestied under a nationwide decree, with the court not making any decision on his guilt. We prepared a Legal Opinion for the consular officer, arguing that because he had not been convicted nor admitted to guilt, that he was not inadmissible. After reviewing our Opinion, the consular officer issued an immigrant visa to Mr. S.
Case of M.T.
Mr. T was convicted of possession of a "dangerous drug" in the US and found inadmissible under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). In a long and complicated case, we strategized with a criminal lawyer about the possibility of vacating his conviction. Upon the motion of the criminal lawyer, the court vacated the conviction and issued a writ of coram nobis. Mr. T pled to a lesser charge, a charge that did not carry a permanent bar. The consulate rescinded the decision and Mr. T was no longer inadmissible.
Case of M.P.
Over the course of two years, Ms. P spent most of her time in the US with her teenage daughter, who was enrolled at a famous ballet school. When Ms. P returned to her home country to renew her visa, her application was denied under Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The consular officer accused her of illegally working in the US and spending too much time in the US; the officer made these claims despite the fact that when Ms. P had applied for the visa two years prior, she had honestly notified the Embassy in advance of her plan to accompany her young daughter for two years and presented bank statements showing her ability to support themselves in the US. Over the next two years, the Embassy denied her visa three more times. She then retained our firm, and we were able to clarify information about her refusals, present evidence to rebut the claims of the consular officers, and help her obtain a new multi-entry B-1/B-2 visa.
Case of C.D.
The F-1 student visa renewal of Ms. D turned into a living nightmare. Over the course of one month, four different consular officers reviewed three of her visa applications — with two officers erroneously permanently denying her for committing a crime of moral turpitude; one officer refusing her under Section 214(b); and one officer having her decision to issue a visa overruled by another officer. After preparing a memorandum of law showing how Ms. D met the requirements of the petty offense exception for convictions of a crime of moral turpitude, she received her visa and was able to return to her university just in time for her semester.
Case of O.A.
The applicant, from a Middle Eastern country, had a DUI in the United States. When he applied for another visa, he was denied after a 10-month 221(g) administrative process. He then contacted our firm, in which we were able to bring additional facts to the attention of the consular officer, including the applicant going through a rehabilitation process and the conviction being set aside. The consular officer sent the applicant for additional alcohol screening at a local clinic, and after the results came back clean, issued a visa to him.