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.

Immigration Success Story – Overcoming E2 Visa Refusal at the US Consulate in Toronto

by

Recently, a Canadian entrepreneur reached out to us after his E2 investor visa was refused at the US Consulate in Toronto. He had invested a substantial amount in a US based consulting business and had applied for an E2 visa to actively manage and grow his company. However, after attending his interview, the consular officer refused the visa under INA 214(b), stating that he had not sufficiently demonstrated that his business was legitimate and operational.

We reviewed his case and identified the main issues that led to the refusal. The consular officer questioned the viability of his business, the source of his investment funds, and whether the enterprise was more than marginal which is a common concern in E2 visa cases. Additionally, the officer noted that the applicant had not provided enough evidence to show that his business would create jobs for US workers, a key requirement for E2 approval.

After taking on the case, we prepared a comprehensive legal brief addressing each of the consular officer’s concerns. We provided extensive documentation,  to eliminate any doubts about the legitimacy of the business.

We requested that the Toronto Consulate reconsider the refusal and allow our client to schedule a follow up interview. After weeks of advocacy and direct communication with the consular post, the embassy agreed to a new interview, where our client presented the additional evidence. This time, the officer approved the E2 visa without further issue, allowing him to enter the US and fully operate his business.

If you have received an E2 visa refusal at the Toronto consulate or another US embassy, don’t assume that your case is over. Many visa denials can be successfully challenged with the right legal strategy. Contact my office immediately at 305-515-0613 or info@messersmithlaw.com. We are here to assist you.

Immigration Success Story – Overcoming H1B Visa Refusal at the London Consulate

by

Recently, a US based technology company contacted us after their employee’s H1B visa was refused at the US Embassy in London. The employee, a highly skilled software engineer, had been working in the US for several years and had traveled to London for visa stamping. However, instead of receiving visa approval, he was subjected to administrative processing, followed by an outright refusal under INA 221(g). The company was eager to have him return to the US to resume his work, but they were unsure how to proceed after the refusal.

We spoke with the employee and reviewed the refusal notice. During his visa interview, the consular officer had questioned the legitimacy of his H1B employment, focusing on whether his role truly required a specialized degree. The officer also expressed concerns about the employer’s ability to pay the offered wage, despite the company being a well established firm. These types of refusals are common when the consulate believes the underlying H1B petition does not meet the legal criteria, even if USCIS had already approved it.

After taking on the case, we immediately contacted the London Consulate to request clarification on the refusal. We submitted a legal memorandum with strong supporting documents, the consulate agreed to reconsider the refusal and requested that our client return for a new interview.

At the second interview, our client presented the additional evidence we had prepared, and the officer reversed the refusal, granting the H1B visa without further delays. Within days, he was back in the United States, continuing his work without any additional issues.

Do you have a similar visa refusal at the London consulate or another U.S. embassy? Contact my office immediately at 305-515-0613 or info@messersmithlaw.com. We are here to assist you.

What to Do if You Receive a Visa Revocation Notice Under INA Section 221(i)

by

Receiving a notification from the U.S. Department of State or a U.S. Embassy stating that your visa has been revoked under INA Section 221(i) can be alarming. Such revocations often occur when new information comes to light suggesting you may be inadmissible to the United States or no longer eligible for the visa issued to you. If you’ve received such a notice, like the one from the U.S. Consulate General Mumbai, it’s essential to understand what this means and what steps you can take to address the situation.

Under INA Section 221(i), the U.S. government has the authority to revoke a visa after issuance if they discover new information indicating potential inadmissibility or ineligibility. This can happen for various reasons, such as suspicion of fraud, misrepresentation, criminal issues, security concerns, or violations of visa conditions. Revocation under this section does not always mean permanent ineligibility, but it does mean that the visa is no longer valid, and you cannot use it for travel to the United States.

In many cases, individuals whose visas have been revoked can reapply, but the success of a new application will depend on addressing the issues that led to the revocation. You may need to provide additional documentation or demonstrate that you are not inadmissible to the United States. If your inadmissibility is based on a specific ground, such as a prior overstay or a criminal record, you may need to apply for a waiver before being eligible for a new visa.

Visa revocation is a serious matter, but it does not necessarily mean the end of your ability to visit or immigrate to the United States. With careful planning and the right legal assistance, it is often possible to resolve the underlying issues and regain eligibility. If you’ve received a visa revocation notice, contact my office today to discuss your situation. If your visa was revoked, contact my office immediately at 305-515-0613 or info@messersmithlaw.com. We are here to assist you.

Pursuing a J1 Waiver as a Fulbright Scholar: What You Need to Know

by

As a Fulbright scholar under a J1 visa, you are likely subject to the two-year home residency requirement under INA 212(e). This means that after your program and any post-academic training, you must return to your home country for two years before you can apply for certain U.S. visas or green card categories. However, if you wish to remain in the United States or pursue opportunities that require waiving this obligation, you may be wondering whether pursuing a J1 waiver is a viable option in your case.

The two-year residency requirement applies to Fulbright scholars because the program typically involves funding from U.S. or foreign governments. Even though your Fulbright scholarship was entirely funded by your home country’s government, you may still be subject to the requirement because of your participation in the Fulbright program, which is governed by strict regulations. However, this does not automatically disqualify you from obtaining a waiver. If you can demonstrate that returning to your home country would result in significant hardship or serve as a detriment to U.S. interests, a waiver may still be possible.

One of the most common pathways for a J1 waiver is the no objection statement from your home country. In your case, since your home government funded your scholarship, obtaining this statement might be challenging. Some governments are reluctant to issue no objection statements to Fulbright scholars, as these agreements often include a formal expectation that participants will return to contribute to their home country. However, it is worth exploring whether your home country’s government is open to issuing such a statement, especially if your contributions to their interests could be enhanced by remaining in the United States.

Alternatively, you might qualify for other waiver categories, such as demonstrating exceptional hardship to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or child if you are required to fulfill the residency requirement. If applicable, the interested U.S. government agency (IGA) pathway might also be an option, especially if your work aligns with critical U.S. government interests. Each option has specific requirements, and determining the best strategy will depend on the unique details of your case.

If you are considering pursuing a J1 waiver, it is essential to evaluate your options carefully and consult with an experienced immigration attorney. Waivers for Fulbright scholars can be complex, especially when home-country funding is involved. Contact my office today to discuss your case, explore potential waiver pathways, and determine whether pursuing a J1 waiver is the right choice for your circumstances. You can reach us at 305-515-0613 or info@messersmithlaw.com. We are here to assist you.