Winning Non-Traditional NIW Cases: How We Helped Clients Qualify for the National Interest Waiver

by

The National Interest Waiver (NIW) is commonly associated with scientists, researchers, and medical professionals who have extensive publications, citations, and academic credentials. While these applicants often meet the traditional criteria, many highly skilled professionals in other industries lack formal publications but still provide valuable contributions to the United States. Our firm has successfully helped clients from non-traditional fields secure NIWs by demonstrating that their work has a substantial impact on US national security, economic growth, and technological advancement, even without a strong academic record. Below are three cases where we helped clients qualify for an NIW without publications or citations.

Case 1: Financial Technology Expert Preventing Fraud in Digital Banking

A financial technology (FinTech) expert specializing in AI-driven fraud detection models was initially unsure if he would qualify for an NIW because he had no published research or citations. However, his work in developing security algorithms for major US banks had a direct impact on preventing financial fraud and protecting millions of consumers. We structured his petition around the real world impact of his work, emphasizing how his fraud detection technology was already being used in the banking sector to combat cyber threats and identity theft. By demonstrating that his contributions strengthened the US financial system and improved national economic security, we secured his NIW approval without the need for academic publications.

Case 2: Aerospace Engineer Reducing Fuel Costs for Airlines

An aerospace engineer working on fuel-efficient aircraft engine designs came to us after being told that his lack of publications would make his NIW case weak. However, his work had already led to advancements in aircraft fuel efficiency, directly benefiting both commercial airlines and US military aviation by reducing fuel consumption and lowering emissions. We focused his petition on the practical impact of his innovations, highlighting how his engineering solutions were being implemented by major aerospace companies and had the potential to save millions in fuel costs while reducing environmental impact. By showing that his work contributed to US energy efficiency and economic stability, we won his NIW case without relying on academic credentials.

Case 3: Cybersecurity Specialist Protecting U.S. Infrastructure

A cybersecurity specialist focusing on critical infrastructure protection approached us after being denied a visa due to his lack of academic research or citations. His expertise, however, was instrumental in developing security protocols that protected power grids, government networks, and transportation systems from cyberattacks. We built his NIW case around the national security implications of his work, emphasizing how his contributions directly prevented potential cyber threats to US infrastructure. His work had been recognized by US government agencies and defense contractors, which helped us establish his eligibility. By demonstrating that his cybersecurity advancements were vital to national security, we successfully secured his NIW approval.

Helping Non-Traditional Professionals Win NIW Cases

If you are an expert in your field but lack traditional academic publications or citations, you may still qualify for a National Interest Waiver if your work significantly benefits the US. We specialize in crafting strong petitions for professionals in finance, engineering, cybersecurity, education, healthcare, business, and other industries where practical contributions outweigh academic credentials. If you want to explore your options, call us today at 305-515-0613 or email info@messersmithlaw.com for a consultation. Let us help you build a winning NIW case and achieve your US immigration goals.

INA 212(a)(6)(E) Waiver

by

What Is Inadmissibility Under INA 212(a)(6)(E)

Under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person can be found inadmissible to the United States for engaging in alien smuggling. This means that at some point, the individual assisted or attempted to assist someone in entering the US illegally. This ground of inadmissibility applies even if no money was exchanged and can include helping family members cross the border without proper documentation.

A finding of inadmissibility under 212(a)(6)(E) carries severe immigration consequences, including:

  • Being barred from obtaining a visa, green card, or other immigration benefits
  • Permanent inadmissibility, unless a waiver is granted or the inadmissibility is rescinded
  • Increased scrutiny at consular interviews or ports of entry

However, for certain individuals, not only is a waiver of inadmissibility is available but we can petition the appropriate government agency to remove the 212(a)(6)(E) charge from their records so it will no longer prevent them from obtaining a US visa and entering the country.

Who Qualifies for a 212(a)(6)(E) Waiver

A waiver for a smuggling-related inadmissibility finding is only available to specific individuals, including:

  • Lawful permanent residents who are applying for reentry
  • Certain visa applicants who are seeking legal entry
  • Spouses, parents, sons, or daughters of US citizens or lawful permanent residents

To be approved for a waiver, the applicant must demonstrate that their removal or continued inadmissibility would cause extreme hardship to their US citizen or lawful permanent resident family members.

Who Qualifies to have their 212(a)(6)(E) Charge Rescinded

Rescinding a smuggling-related inadmissibility finding is available to many individuals, including:

  • Individuals Wrongfully Accused of Smuggling Due to Misinterpretation of Facts
  • Minors Who Were Classified as Smugglers for Actions Taken Under Parental Direction
  • Legal Permanent Residents or Visa Holders Facing Smuggling Allegations Based on Past Conduct That No Longer Applies

Each case is different, and challenging a smuggling determination requires strong legal arguments and supporting evidence. If you or someone you know has been deemed inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(E), legal action may be possible to remove the charge and restore immigration eligibility.

How We Have Helped Clients Obtain a 212(a)(6)(E) Waiver

Case 1: African Tourist on a B-2 Visa Wrongfully Accused of Smuggling a Child

A woman from Nigeria traveling on a B-2 tourist visa was accused of alien smuggling under INA 212(a)(6)(E) when she arrived at JFK Airport with her niece, whom she planned to care for during a family emergency. CBP officers suspected that she was bringing the child to the U.S. illegally without proper guardianship or immigration authorization. Despite her explanation, her visa was canceled on the spot, and she was deported with a permanent bar on re-entry.

Her family in the U.S. reached out to us, and we immediately began challenging the smuggling charge. We filed a legal challenge with the Department of State and CBP, demonstrating that she did not engage in alien smuggling. After months of legal advocacy, we successfully removed the 212(a)(6)(E) charge from her record, allowing her to apply for a new visa and regain her ability to travel to the U.S. legally.

Case 2: Waiver Granted for a Mother Who Helped Her Child Enter the U.S.

A mother from Central America entered the U.S. without inspection years ago, bringing her young child with her. When she later applied for a green card through marriage to a U.S. citizen, she was deemed inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(E) because the government considered her actions to be alien smuggling.

We filed an I-601 waiver on her behalf, arguing that she was acting in the best interests of her child and not engaging in smuggling for financial gain. We also demonstrated extreme hardship to her U.S. citizen spouse and child if she were denied her green card. The waiver was approved, the smuggling charge was waived, and she obtained her lawful permanent resident status.

Case 3: Business Owner Wrongfully Accused of Smuggling Employees

A foreign entrepreneur with a valid E-2 investor visa was accused of facilitating the illegal entry of workers after a former employee falsely claimed that the business owner had arranged for unauthorized foreign employees to enter the U.S. The consulate revoked his visa and placed a 212(a)(6)(E) bar on his record, preventing him from returning to the U.S.

We gathered documentation proving that all employees were hired legally and that the accusations were false and based on a misunderstanding. After submitting a legal challenge to the U.S. consulate and Department of State, we successfully had the smuggling charge removed, and his visa was reinstated. He was able to return to the U.S. and continue running his business legally.

Need Help Removing a 212(a)(6)(E) Charge? Contact Us Today

If you have been deemed inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(E) for alien smuggling, you may still have options. Whether you qualify for a waiver, a legal challenge, or an appeal, we can help you fight the charge and regain your immigration status.

Call us today at 305-515-0613 or email info@messersmithlaw.com for immediate assistance. Let us help you navigate your immigration challenges and fight for your future in the United States.

22 CFR 41.122(c)(2)

by

22 CFR 41.122(c)(2) is a specific provision within the US Department of State regulations that outlines criteria for visa issuance decisions, particularly addressing circumstances under which a visa may be denied.

22 CFR 41.122(c)(2) gives consular officers discretionary authority when a visa applicant’s file raises concerns regarding eligibility. It also gives consular officers discretionary power to cancel or revoke a visa when conditions that initially justified its issuance are later found to be unmet or compromised. This provision allows officers to act when new information or evidence indicates that the visa holder may have provided fraudulent information, misrepresented facts, or otherwise no longer qualifies under the terms of the visa category.

While the regulation provides the authority to cancel or revoke a visa, in many cases the individual is given notice or an opportunity to address the concerns before the final decision is made—though this may vary depending on the situation.

Our law firm has successfully helped individuals fight visa cancellation or revocation issues and regain legal immigration status. Every case is unique, and we can help determine the best strategy for you.

Call us today at 305-515-0613 or email info@messersmithlaw.com for immediate assistance. Let us help you navigate your immigration challenges and fight for your future in the United States.

212(a)(6)(C)(i) Waiver

by

What Is Inadmissibility Under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)

Under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, an individual is inadmissible to the United States if they have been found to have committed fraud or willfully misrepresented a material fact in order to obtain a visa, entry, or any other immigration benefit. This ground of inadmissibility applies to those who have provided false information on visa applications, used fraudulent documents, or misrepresented their intent when entering the U.S.

A misrepresentation finding can have serious consequences, including:

  • Permanent inadmissibility to the United States
  • Denial of a visa, green card, or entry at the border
  • Ineligibility for most immigration benefits without an approved waiver

A waiver is available for certain individuals, allowing them to overcome the inadmissibility finding and continue with their immigration process.

Who Qualifies for a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Waiver

A waiver for fraud or misrepresentation is only available to:

  • Spouses, parents, sons, or daughters of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents
  • Individuals who can demonstrate that their U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relative would suffer extreme hardship if they are denied entry or status

The applicant must prove that their removal or continued inadmissibility would cause significant hardship to their qualifying relative, such as financial, medical, or emotional difficulties.

How We Have Helped Clients Obtain a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Waiver

Case 1: Waiver approved for a misrepresentation on a visa application

A Mexican national was denied a green card after USCIS found that he had misrepresented his marital status on a past visitor visa application. Even though the mistake was unintentional, he was deemed inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for misrepresentation.

We filed an I-601 waiver, demonstrating that his U.S. citizen wife would suffer extreme hardship if he were not allowed to obtain legal status. The waiver was approved, and he was granted his green card.

Case 2: Overcoming a fraud charge for using false documents

A Central American immigrant had entered the U.S. years ago using a false passport. Later, he married a U.S. citizen and applied for a green card. At his adjustment of status interview, USCIS determined that he had committed fraud under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and denied his application.

We filed an I-601 waiver, arguing that his U.S. citizen wife would suffer extreme hardship due to her medical condition and financial dependence on him. After several months of advocacy, the waiver was approved, and he was granted permanent residency.

In Some Cases a Waiver is NOT Required!

Case 3: Challenging a misrepresentation finding at the consulate

A business owner from South America was denied a U.S. visa because the consulate accused him of providing false financial information on a prior application. He had unknowingly submitted incorrect tax documents prepared by an advisor, which led to a misrepresentation finding.

We prepared a detailed legal argument proving that he did not intentionally misrepresent his finances. After reviewing our evidence, the consulate overturned the misrepresentation finding, and he was issued a visa without needing the waiver.

Need a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Waiver? Contact Us Today

If you have been found inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) due to fraud or misrepresentation, you may still have options. A waiver may allow you to obtain a visa, green card, or reenter the U.S. legally, but these cases require strong legal arguments and supporting evidence.

Our law firm has successfully helped individuals fight misrepresentation findings, file waivers, and regain legal immigration status. Every case is unique, and we can help determine the best strategy for you.

Call us today at 305-515-0613 or email info@messersmithlaw.com for immediate assistance. Let us help you navigate your immigration challenges and fight for your future in the United States.

22 CFR 41.32: Understanding the B-1 Visa for Foreign Professionals and Entrepreneurs

by

What Is 22 CFR 41.32?

22 CFR 41.32 is the section of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that primarily governs the Border Crossing Card (BCC), which is a specific type of B-1/B-2 visa exclusively for Mexican citizens. The BCC is issued to eligible Mexican nationals who frequently travel to the US for business or tourism and is designed to facilitate easier and faster border crossings.

Key Facts About the Border Crossing Card (BCC)

  • The BCC functions as a B-1/B-2 visa but is specifically for Mexican nationals.
  • It is valid for up to 10 years, depending on the applicant’s eligibility.
  • It allows entry into the US for business, tourism, or medical visits but not for work.
  • Holders can stay in the US for up to 30 days if crossing into designated border zones, or up to six months if traveling beyond the border area.
  • Travelers must comply with all B-1/B-2 restrictions and cannot engage in unauthorized employment.

Common Issues With the Border Crossing Card (BCC)

Even though the BCC is a convenient travel document, many Mexican nationals face denials, revocations, or entry refusals if CBP officers suspect:

  • The applicant does not have strong ties to Mexico and may overstay.
  • The traveler has used the BCC improperly (e.g., engaging in unauthorized work).
  • The applicant previously violated US immigration laws or overstayed on a prior visit.
  • CBP believes the person is not a genuine visitor and intends to live in the US permanently.

How We Have Helped Clients With 22 CFR 41.32 Issues

Case 1: Border Crossing Card Revoked for Suspected Overstay

A Mexican national who frequently visited the US for shopping and tourism had her BCC revoked at a border checkpoint after CBP officers suspected she had previously stayed longer than allowed. She was banned from re-entering the US for five years under INA 212(a)(9)(A).

We filed a legal request with CBP and provided proof that the alleged overstay was a misunderstanding. After several months, the bar was lifted and she was allowed her to obtain a new Border Crossing Card.

Case 2: BCC Denied Due to Previous Unauthorized Work

A Mexican business owner applied for a BCC to visit the US for business meetings, but his application was denied due to previous unauthorized employment when he briefly worked in the US without a work visa.

We helped him apply for a waiver and demonstrated that he now fully understood US immigration laws and had no intent to violate them again. His waiver was approved, and he successfully obtained a new BCC.

Need Help With a Border Crossing Card Issue? Contact Us Today

If your Border Crossing Card was denied, revoked, or canceled, or if you were barred from entry into the US, you may still have legal options to challenge the decision and regain your travel privileges. Call us today at 305-515-0613 or email info@messersmithlaw.com for immediate assistance. Let us help you regain your ability to travel to the US legally and without complications.

Understanding INA 212(a)(9)(B)(ii): The 3-Year and 10-Year Unlawful Presence Bars

by

What Is INA 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) and How Does It Affect You?

Under Section 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), individuals who accumulate unlawful presence in the US may face serious reentry bars that prevent them from obtaining a visa or green card for several years. This section of the law applies to those who:

  • Overstayed their visa beyond the authorized period
  • Entered the U.S. without inspection (EWI) and remained unlawfully
  • Failed to maintain legal immigration status for a prolonged period

The penalties under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i) include:

  • 3-Year Bar: Applies if you were unlawfully present for more than 180 days but less than one year and then left the US.
  • 10-Year Bar: Applies if you were unlawfully present for one year or more and then left the US.

These bars take effect only when you leave the US, meaning that many people do not realize they are barred from returning until they apply for a visa or green card abroad. The good news is that there are legal solutions to overcome these bars—but acting quickly is essential.

How We Have Helped Clients Affected by INA 212(a)(9)(B)(ii)

Case 1: Challenging an Incorrect Unlawful Presence Determination for Children Brought to the US Illegally

A mother brought her two young children into the US without inspection when they were minors. After living in the US for over 10 years, the children eventually applied for DACA and later became eligible for green cards through sponsorship by a U.S. citizen relative. However, during their green card interviews, USCIS determined that they were subject to the 10-year unlawful presence bar under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) because they had accrued unlawful presence after turning 18.

Their family reached out to us for help, and we challenged the determination, arguing that the children were unlawfully present only as minors, and therefore their time in the US before turning 18 should not count against them. We provided extensive legal arguments and documentation proving that they were not subject to the 10-year bar under existing immigration law.

After several months of advocacy, USCIS reversed their decision, agreeing that the children were not inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(ii). Their green card applications were approved, allowing them to become lawful permanent residents without having to leave the US and face unnecessary separation from their family.

Case 2: Securing an I-601 Waiver for a Business Professional Facing a 10-Year Bar

A business professional had been traveling to the US frequently on a B-1 visa for work meetings. During a routine visa renewal application, the US consulate denied his visa and informed him that he was subject to a 10-year bar under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) for allegedly overstaying his visa during a prior visit.

Our client acknowledged that he had unintentionally overstayed his visa due to a misunderstanding of the permitted duration of his stay. Recognizing the consequences of his overstay, he sought legal assistance to apply for a waiver and rectify his immigration status. Despite his overstay, he had strong business and personal ties to the US, and we worked to demonstrate that his continued absence would cause extreme hardship to his US business partners and family.

We filed an I-601 waiver, arguing that his inability to travel to the US caused extreme hardship to his US family, who relied on him both financially and emotionally. After months of legal advocacy, the waiver was approved, and the consulate granted him a new visa. He was able to resume his business activities in the U.S. without further restrictions.

How You Can Overcome a 3-Year or 10-Year Bar

If you have been told that you are inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) due to unlawful presence, you may still have options. Depending on your case, you may be able to:

  • Apply for a waiver (I-601 or I-601A) to waive the bar
  • Challenge incorrect unlawful presence determinations

However, time is critical—if you are outside the US or planning to travel, acting quickly can make a huge difference in resolving your case.

Call my office now at 305-515-0613 or email info@messersmithlaw.com for immediate legal assistance. We have successfully helped clients fight visa bars, obtain waivers, and secure legal reentry to the US. Let us help you navigate your immigration challenges today.

I-860 Notice and Order of Expedited Removal

by

What Is an I-860 Notice and Order of Expedited Removal?

An I-860 Notice and Order of Expedited Removal is a formal removal order issued by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at airports, land borders, and ports of entry when they determine that a traveler is inadmissible under Section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Unlike regular deportation proceedings, expedited removal happens quickly, without a hearing before an immigration judge, often leading to a five-year or longer ban from re-entering the United States.

This order is commonly issued in cases where CBP believes a traveler has:

  • Used fraudulent documents or misrepresented information
  • Attempted to enter the U.S. without valid travel authorization
  • Violated the terms of a prior visa
  • Been previously removed and tried to re-enter

Once an I-860 Notice and Order of Expedited Removal is issued, the traveler is usually detained and placed on the next available flight back to their home country. However, this does not always mean your case is over—with the right legal strategy, expedited removals can sometimes be challenged, overturned, or waived.

Why You Need an Immigration Attorney

Receiving an I-860 Notice and Order of Expedited Removal can feel devastating, but you may still have legal options. Depending on your case, you may be able to:

  • Request reconsideration of the removal order
  • Apply for a waiver to return to the U.S.

However, time is critical. If you act quickly, you may have a better chance of challenging the removal and returning to the US legally.

Call my office now at 305-515-0613 or email info@messersmithlaw.com for a consultation. We have successfully helped clients fight expedited removal orders, obtain waivers, and restore their ability to enter the US Let us help you navigate your immigration options today.

Record of Sworn Statement in Proceedings Under Section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

by

What Is a Record of Sworn Statement in Proceedings Under INA 235(b)(1)?

When an individual is denied entry to the United States at a port of entry, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers may initiate expedited removal under Section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). As part of this process, CBP typically conducts a formal interview and records the traveler’s answers in a Record of Sworn Statement (Form I-867A/B).

This sworn statement serves as official evidence in expedited removal proceedings and can be used to justify a ban of five years or more from re-entering the US. The individual’s responses during this questioning can significantly impact their future ability to obtain a visa, green card, or other immigration benefits. Unfortunately, many travelers do not realize the importance of this statement and may unknowingly say things that harm their case.

Why Is This Statement Critical?

  • It documents the reason for removal, such as visa fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of proper documentation.
  • The traveler must sign it before being removed, often without fully understanding its consequences.
  • Any inconsistencies or admissions can later be used against the individual in future immigration applications.
  • It can lead to a misrepresentation finding, making the person permanently inadmissible to the U.S. unless they obtain a waiver.

Why You Need an Immigration Attorney

If you have been issued a Record of Sworn Statement in Proceedings Under Section 235(b)(1) or face an expedited removal order, it is crucial to act quickly. These records can permanently affect your immigration future, but with the right legal strategy, they can often be challenged or corrected.

Do not sign a sworn statement without understanding its consequences. If you or a loved one has been detained by CBP and issued an expedited removal order, you may still have options to fight the decision, request a waiver, or reopen your case.

Call my office now at 305-515-0613 or email info@messersmithlaw.com for immediate legal assistance. We have successfully helped clients challenge removal orders, overturn CBP decisions, and restore their ability to enter the US. Let us help you fight for your rights.

Deportation at the Airport

by

Can You Be Detained and Deported at the Airport?

Yes, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers have the authority to detain, question, and even deport travelers at the airport if they determine that the individual is inadmissible. This can happen for many reasons, such as missing documents, visa issues, prior immigration violations, or suspicions about your intent to enter the US If you are denied entry, CBP can cancel your visa, place you on the next flight home, place you in detention or even issue an expedited removal order which comes with a 5 year bar from re-entry.

However, being deported at the airport does not always mean your case is over. In many situations, legal action can help overturn a removal decision or secure permission to return in the future. Here are three real cases where we successfully assisted clients after an airport deportation.

Case 1: Business Visitor B1 Visa Holder Denied Entry Due to Suspicions of Unauthorized Work

A European entrepreneur traveling on a B1 visa was denied entry at airport when CBP officers accused him of planning to work illegally. They canceled his visa and sent him back on the next flight. We reviewed his case and determined that CBP misinterpreted his business activities. We worked with CBP to correct the issue and helped him obtain a new visa and return to the US legally for his business meetings.

Case 2: H1B Visa Holder Deported Over an Old Criminal Charge

An H1B visa holder returning from a family trip abroad was detained at the airport after CBP discovered an old drug related conviction on his record. His H1B visa was cancelled and he was removed and banned from re entering the US for a period of 5 years.  Our firm quickly filed a legal brief with CBP and convinced them to remove the 5 year bar.  Now that the bar was lifted, were able able to help him secure a new H1B visa which was approved without any delay. 

Case 3: Student Visa Canceled for Alleged Visa Fraud

A foreign student arriving on an F1 visa was accused of misrepresenting his intent after CBP officers found social media messages suggesting he was working off campus. His visa was revoked, and he was banned from re-entering the US for five years. We filed a nonimmigrant waiver and appealed the decision, successfully arguing that the student did not intend to violate his visa. He was eventually granted a new F1 visa and resumed his studies.

Have You Been Deported at the Airport? Contact Us Immediately

If you or a loved one has been denied entry or deported at the airport, you may still have options. In many cases, deportations can be challenged, waivers can be filed, and bans can be lifted with the right legal strategy. The sooner you act, the better your chances of fixing the situation.

Contact my office immediately at 305-515-0613 or info@messersmithlaw.com for a consultation. We have extensive experience helping individuals fight wrongful deportations and regain their ability to enter the US.

Immigration Success Story – Overcoming INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) Inadmissibility

by

A client recently contacted our firm after being denied an immigrant visa due to a past conviction. The US consulate found him inadmissible under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), determining that his offense involved moral turpitude. This unexpected decision jeopardized his green card application and future in the US.

Upon reviewing his case, we identified that the consular officer failed to apply the Petty Offense Exception, which allows certain minor offenses to be excused. His conviction met the legal criteria: the maximum penalty was under one year, and his actual sentence was less than six months. Despite this, the consulate mistakenly deemed him inadmissible.

We took immediate action by preparing a detailed legal memorandum explaining why the Petty Offense Exception applied. After weeks of advocacy and direct communication with the consular post, the embassy agreed to a new visa interview. This time, the officer correctly applied the law and approved his immigrant visa without further issue.

If you have been found inadmissible under  INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), don’t assume your case is over. Many visa refusals can be successfully challenged and overcome with the right legal strategy. Contact my office immediately at 305-515-0613 or info@messersmithlaw.com. We are here to help.