Section 212(a)(6)(B) Failure to Attend Removal Proceedings

Section 212(a)(6)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act establishes a specific ground of inadmissibility tied to a noncitizen’s failure to comply with immigration court obligations. The provision applies to individuals who, after being placed in removal proceedings, fail to attend a scheduled hearing. When triggered, it renders the individual ineligible for admission to the United States for 5 years, making it an important issue in both immigrant and nonimmigrant visa adjudications.

The statutory rule is relatively straightforward. A person who, without reasonable cause, fails or refuses to attend a removal hearing initiated on or after April 1, 1997, becomes inadmissible for 5 years following their subsequent departure or removal from the United States. This inadmissibility applies when the individual seeks a visa or admission to the United States during that five-year period. The provision is closely tied to the service of a Notice to Appear (NTA), because the government must show that the individual was properly placed in removal proceedings and had notice of the hearing.

A central feature of this ground is the “reasonable cause” exception. The law does not impose inadmissibility where the failure to appear for the hearing was due to circumstances beyond the individual’s reasonable control. Guidance from the Department of State indicates that reasonable cause generally involves events such as serious illness, being in custody, or other documented circumstances that made attendance impracticable. By contrast, routine or avoidable issues-such as failing to update an address, misplacing a hearing notice, or relying on informal advice not to attend-are typically insufficient to meet this standard. The determination is highly fact-specific and depends on the credibility and documentation of the explanation provided.

Critically, Section 212(a)(6)(B)’s five-year inadmissibility period starts from the individual’s departure or removal from the United States, not from the missed hearing itself. Unlike many other inadmissibility grounds, there is no immigrant visa waiver available for this provision. This means that, for example, if the individual left the US to attend an immigrant visa interview after an I-601A waiver approval for unlawful presence and the consular officer makes such a Section 212(a)(6)(B) finding, the individual will not be able to return to the US for 5 years from the date of the departure from the US. The consul can make this decision even if the immigration court hearing was terminated by the administrative judge, i.e., while it appears that the judge “forgave” the missed hearing, the consul might not. A nonimmigrant waiver under Section 212(d)(3)(A) may be available if the consul makes a 212(a)(6)(B) decision on a nonimmigrant visa application. However, the hard part with a nonimmigrant visitor visa application is that the person — after spending substantial time in the US and missing a removal hearing — is unlikely to establish close ties and qualify for the visitor visa, particularly if an immigrant petition was filed.

As can be seen, this potential problem can arise in a case involving an in absentia removal order or a missed immigration court hearing. The key issues typically include whether proper notice was provided, whether the individual actually failed to appear or departed prematurely, and whether the circumstances surrounding the absence qualify as reasonable cause. Because the consequences are severe, careful reconstruction of the procedural history and supporting evidence is often critical in assessing or overcoming a finding under Section 212(a)(6)(B).

How does W&A help?

Given the consequences of a five-year bar and separation from family, it is imperative to understand the potential legal obstacles. As can be seen, these decisions can sometimes be prevented or challenged. Before a person departs the United States, we conduct an individual assessment of the likelihood that a consular officer will invoke Section 212(a)(6)(B). For those who have already left and have been refused a visa under Section 212(a)(6)(B) finding, we consult on the possibility of challenging the consular decision. We carefully analyze the underlying immigration court record and procedural history. This includes reviewing whether proper notice was served, identifying any inconsistencies in government records, and assessing whether a credible reasonable cause argument can be supported with documentation. In nonimmigrant cases, we also advise on the preparation of waiver requests, presenting the relevant equities and legal considerations to maximize the likelihood of approval. Please feel free to contact us so that we may be able to assess your case.