Visarefusal

Case of O.H.

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 12:37:00 +0300

O had made misrepresentations in visa applications and ESTA applications over the years, but finally, his luck ran out. The consul caught up with his misrepresentations, and handed him a permanent bar under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). Undeterred, O tried to apply for a nonimmigrant waiver on his own — but without success. That is when he reached out to us. We helped prepare a nonimmigrant waiver application for him. In preparation for his interview, we reviewed all of the possible issues and problems in his complicated history and conducted a mock interview. After a long, detailed interview, the consul recommended the Section 212(d)(3)(A) nonimmigrant waiver.

Case of A.M.

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 12:28:00 +0300

A had been receiving visas for the past 25 years without problem. But times have changed. Everything is under scrutiny. And so after he was denied a visitor visa under Section 214(b) and re-applied for a visa, his application was placed in 221(g) administrative processing — for 2 years! After we did a deep-dive into his case, he decided to proceed with a writ of mandamus lawsuit against the Department of State and the Embassy. 3 weeks after the filing of the lawsuit, the Embassy contacted him to advise that it was ready to issue the visa and requested him to submit his passport. Shortly thereafter, he received a new visa.

Case of S.A.

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 12:26:00 +0300

S was riding the American bureaucracy carousel: from the embassy to USCIS to the Freedom of Information Act divisions of USCIS and CBP trying to find out why he had been permanently barred from the United States under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). But no one would tell him. And so after he contacted us and we reviewed his convoluted situation, we decided to challenge the original source of the notification. We argued that a mistake had been made in the consular interpretation of a “flag” and there could not have been a 6Ci finding of inadmissibility. After a brief review, the Department of State agreed and confirmed that there was no 6Ci finding of inadmissibility.

Case of R.R.

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 15:09:00 +0300

R was worried. We had helped R receive a nonimmigrant waiver for a Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) a few years ago. Before Trump 2.0, renewals of nonimmigrant waivers were relatively straightforward: as long as the applicant complied with the terms of the visa and the waiver, the consular officer would usually renew the nonimmigrant waiver. But that changed in 2025. The Trump Administration announced that it would no longer defer to previous grants of nonimmigrant waivers. When R’s nonimmigrant waiver process dragged on and on, R became anxious. He thought that he would not be able to visit his family in the United States. But after we continued to press his case, finally, the Embassy issued to him the visa — granting the nonimmigrant waiver for the maximum period of 5 years.

Case of M.M.

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 15:08:00 +0300

When M was a young man, he got into a brawl — with the end result a conviction for “deliberately inflicting mild damage." Although the conviction had been expunged under local law, it remained a potential problem for his immigration to the US. He had married a US green card holder and the couple were concerned that this would be an obstacle for his immigration — or that he would need an immigrant waiver, which could take several years to process. After undertaking some legal analysis, we came to the conclusion that the sentencing exception (“petty offense”) applied because this was his lone conviction, the maximum jail time did not exceed one year, and he was sentenced to less than 6 months imprisonment. This meant that Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) did not apply to him and that he did not need a waiver. We helped prepare an explanation in his DS-260 immigrant visa application form and a short legal memorandum reflecting that conclusion. Within days of his interview, the Embassy issued the immigrant visa to him.

Case of C.N.

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 15:08:00 +0300

C’s attorney told her that CBP had removed the permanent misrepresentation bar under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) — but it had not. She only found this out when she applied for a visa and the consul advised her that the bar remained in place. That is when she contacted us. We contacted both CBP and the Department of State to prevent an exercise in “passing the buck." After some going back and forth, finally CBP confirmed that it removed the 6Ci bar, enabling C. to apply for a new visa.

Case of H.S.

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 15:07:00 +0300

More than 20 years ago H agreed to a nolo contendre plea to a battery-related charge. The statute under which he was convicted was broad: allowing for a conviction even for mere touching, not just violence, injury, or intent to injure. Federal case law was also on H’s side, holding that this was not a crime of moral turpitude. But no one at the Embassy cared to go into any details: over the course of 20 years, the Embassy continually, automatically denied his visa under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); throughout all those years, according to the Embassy, he needed a nonimmigrant waiver to travel to the US. H didn’t think too much about it — until his waiver requests were denied and his family members in the US needed him to visit. That’s when he reached out to us, and we challenged the permanent bar decision, arguing that his conviction was not for a crime of moral turpitude. After a 3-month review process, the 2AiI decision was removed. Now, after 20 lost years, H no longer needs a waiver to travel to the United States.

Case of X.Y.

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 15:06:00 +0300

It was a mystery to us and X, a Chinese scientist: why had she been permanently barred from the US under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and which agency made the decision? Was it CBP or the consular officer that made the decision? The initial consular responses to our inquiries were coy and opaque. Only upon repeated requests and sheer persistence did the consulate back down: yes, it had made the decision, and after further review, it realized that it had made a serious mistake. Finally, it removed the 6Ci bar — a bar that never should have been imposed in the first place.

Case of B.T.

Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:52:00 +0300

Because of a conviction related to a drug possession case when he was 21, B was inadmissible under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). For years, he was able to obtain a nonimmigrant waiver. But after his most recent visa expired and he reapplied for a new waiver, out of the blue, the consular officer handed him a visa refusal sheet indicating that he was a drug trafficker: Section 212(a)(2)(C)(i). How could that be? During our consultation with B, we did a deep dive into the drug-related incident and came to the conclusion that it could only be viewed as a controlled substance violation, not trafficking. We helped B compose a letter to the Embassy seeking clarification and disputing the refusal. After a couple of days, the Embassy acknowledged its error, removed the 2C entry, and recommended the granting of the waiver for the 2AiII inadmissibility.

Case of P.T.

Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:50:00 +0300

P is a professional in her home country with a US visa history dating back many years. In early 2019, she received a new US visa and traveled to the US to visit family. Later, during the pandemic, she gave birth in the US at the end of 2020, paying the hospital bills and leaving within a couple of months. But notwithstanding the black-and-white edict of the Trump Birth Tourism Rule that it would only apply to visas issued after January 2020, the consul decided to apply the rule retroactively to P. The consul entered the US “death penalty” against P: finding her permanently inadmissible under the misrepresentation provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). It is not clear if the decision stemmed from discrimination, a personal agenda, or sheer ignorance, but after the preparation of a chronology of events, supporting documentation, and a request to rescind, the Department of State promptly removed the 6Ci permanent bar from P.