Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) + Expedited Removal Under 235(b)

by

When a foreign national tries to enter the U.S., CBP can deny the entry if CBP believes the foreign national  intends to remain in the US permanently but does not have a dual intent nonimmigrant visa nor an immigrant visa. This generally results in an expedited removal order which comes with a five year ban from entering the United States.  Let’s highlight two recent successful cases where we were able to remove these charges from our client’s records.

  1. A client from Brazil sought entry to the United States for a business conference but was denied entry due to INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and removed. CBP believed the client lacked proper documentation for the intended stay. However, upon review, we discovered errors in the CBP’s assessment. Through meticulous documentation and persuasive arguments, we appealed the decision to the CBP. As a result, the removal order was lifted, and our client was granted a visa, allowing them to attend the conference and pursue their business endeavors in the U.S.
  2. A family from Mexico planned a vacation to the United States but encountered unexpected challenges upon arrival. Despite having valid tourist visas, they were detained by CBP at the border due to suspicions of insufficient documentation under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and removed. After thorough investigation and advocacy, we clarified the family’s intentions and provided additional evidence of their ties to their home country. Our efforts resulted in a huge victory and the 5 year ban was erased, allowing the family to reenter as tourist and enjoy their vacation without further hindrance.

Do you have a similar case or a case you thought was hopeless?  Don’t be discouraged.  We have won many complicated cases.  If you have a similar inadmissibility issue, contact us by phone at 305 515 0613 or email us at info@messersmithlaw.com.

Section 306 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act

by

What is the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act?

The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 was enacted shortly following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Its primary purpose was to bolster national security by improving the screening of visa applicants, enhancing border security measures, and implementing a biometric entry-exit system to track the movements of foreigners in the United States.

What is Section 306 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act?

Section 306 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 establishes restrictions on the issuance of visas to individuals from countries designated as state sponsors of international terrorism, with exceptions provided for cases where the individual is deemed not to pose a threat to U.S. safety or national security.

Which Countries are Designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism?

  1. Cuba;
  2. North Korea;
  3. Iran; and
  4. Syria.

What are the Standards and Criteria Used to Make this Determination Against a Visa Applicant?

Exceptions to the restriction on issuing visas to individuals from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism are provided for cases where the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and other appropriate U.S. agencies, determines that the individual does not pose a threat to U.S. safety or national security.

These standards and criteria include a range of factors aimed at assessing the individual’s background, intentions, and potential risk to national security which include the following:

  1. Criminal History;
  2. Terrorist Connections;
  3. Travel History;
  4. Biographical Information;
  5. Interviews and Interrogations; and
  6. Intelligence Information.

Resolutions to Refusals Due to Section 306 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act

If you have been deemed inadmissible due to Section 306 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act and you believe the determination was unjustly made, we can help you challenge that determination and request that it be removed from your record. We have successfully helped many innocent people win their cases. We can help you.  Please feel free to call us at 305-515-0613 or email us at info@messersmithlaw.com.

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(6)(E)

by

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(6)(E)

When a foreign national tries to enter the U.S., CBP can deny the entry if CBP believes the foreign national knowingly encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law. This generally results in a permanent lifetime ban but CBP can apply additional penalties as they deem applicable.  Let’s highlight two recent successful cases where we were able to remove these charges from our client’s records.

  1. An Indian client had a friend on H1B status in the United States. His friend told him that he was experiencing money problems and asked our client for a loan. Unbeknownst to our client, his friend used that money to operate a business that illegally smuggled foreigners into the US. As a result, The US Consulate in New Delhi refused our client’s visa application pursuant to section INA 212(a)(6)(E). We worked with the US State Department, the agency that has authority to review decisions made by the Consulate, and we were able to get the 212(a)(6)(E) charge removed from our client’s record. Then we filed a new visa petition with USCIS and successfully helped our client obtain an L1 visa.
  2. A Chinese family of three entered the US on tourist visas.  They were all granted permission to remain in the US for 6 months. Because the wife had a successful business in China, she had to leave early and her family said that they wanted to stay a little longer. However, after she left, the husband decided to overstay. Later the US Consulate contacted the wife to inform her that her B2 visa had been cancelled and that she would have to apply for a new visa. When she did, she was held responsible for her family’s decision to overstay and her visa was refused pursuant to INA 212(a)(6)(E) and INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i).  Again, we appealed this decision to the US State Department and we were able to win this case. They agreed with us that the wife should not held responsible for the actions of her family. We continued to work with the Consulate and ultimately they agreed to remove both charges from her record and she was then eligible to obtain a new visa.

Do you have a similar case or a case you thought was hopeless?  Don’t be discouraged.  We have won many complicated cases.  If you have a similar inadmissibility issue, contact us by phone at 305 515 0613 or email us at info@messersmithlaw.com.

H1B Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) Received Due to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)

by

Foreign nationals may be inadmissible if he or she made a false representation in order to obtain an immigration benefit. Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible.

We take pride in our track record of helping foreign nationals and their US employers overcome difficult NOIRs issued by USCIS, especially in cases where problems related to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) are involved.

In a recent case, a client approached us worried that he might lose his H1B status. Six months after his H1B petition was approved, USCIS made a site visit to his work location. He was not at work during the visit and USCIS found several issues which lead them to believe that our client was not working as described in the petition. However, several months passed without anything happening and our client thought everything would be fine. However, six months after the site visit, USCIS decided to issue an NOIR to the employer and gave them just 30 days to respond to 7 different issues they had with the petition.

We understand that such notices can be deeply unsettling but they are not the end of the road. Our firm swiftly stepped into action, meticulously crafting a point-by-point response to the USCIS’s concerns. With more than 20 years of experience in immigration law, we challenged the NOIR by collecting substantial evidence, preparing comprehensive documentation, and building a robust defense arguing our client’s compliance with H1B requirements. Our focused and aggressive approach was designed to address not only the immediate revocation threat but also to solidify our client’s standing with USCIS going forward.

This is just one of many success stories that illustrate our expertise and commitment to securing positive results for our clients. If you or your employees have been served with a NOIR, time is of the essence. Don’t hesitate to reach out to us. Contact our office and we’ll work together to reach a favorable outcome in your case.

H1B RFE Received Due to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)

by

Foreign nationals may be inadmissible if he or she made a false representation in order to obtain an immigration benefit. Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible.

We take pride in our track record of helping foreign nationals and their US employers overcome difficult RFEs issued by USCIS, especially in cases where problems related to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) are involved.

In a recent case, a client approached us in a state of panic after receiving an RFE for his H1B petition. His application had been submitted by his company’s lawyer who was not able to properly explain our client’s previous involvement with AZTech. During his Optional Practical Training (OPT), the client had paid for training with AZTech, only to later discover that the company was fraudulent. Although he left the company as soon as he discovered the company was fake, USCIS brought up the issues several years later in his H1B petition.

USCIS believed our client had committed fraud due to his association with AZTech during his OPT. This not only raised questions about potential misrepresentation under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), but also put the legitimacy of his F1 student visa status into question, stating that they may classify his stay as unlawful.

Facing such complicated inadmissibility issues, the client wisely chose to retain our services. Our team meticulously prepared a comprehensive legal argument to accompany his RFE response. The outcome? USCIS concurred with our position, approved the H1B petition, and issued an I-94 to our client.

This is just one of many success stories that illustrate our expertise and commitment to securing positive results for our clients. If you’re facing similar immigration challenges, don’t hesitate to reach out to us. Contact our office and we’ll work together to reach a favorable outcome in your case.

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(3)(A)

by

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(3)(A)

When a foreign national tries to enter the US, CBP can deny the entry if CBP believes the foreign national has or will engage in any activity relating to espionage, sabotage or illegally exporting US goods, technology, or sensitive information, or any other unlawful activity related to control or overthrow of the US. This generally results in a lifetime ban from ever returning to the US.  Let’s highlight two recent successful cases where we were able to remove these charges from our client’s records.

  1. We had a Chinese client who earned a PhD in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from a US school. After graduation, he worked for a Canadian company that had a branch office in the US. His company sponsored him for an L1 visa but when we attended his interview at the Consulate, he was refused pursuant to INA 212(a)(3)(A). The Consulate did not provide any details or justification for the refusal. They simply provided a refusal worksheet that listed INA 212(a)(3)(A). He came to us for our help after the refusal and we were able to work with both the Consulate and the State Department to show that simply being from China and having a mechanical engineering or aerospace engineering degree was not sufficient to support a 212(a)(3)(A) refusal. They agreed and removed the charge from his record and we were able to secure his L1 visa and entry to the US without further issue.
  2. In another instance, we had a client from Iran who had obtained Canadian citizenship run into similar problems. He was able to enter the US as a tourist to attend a job interview with a US University but after the offered him the position and sponsored his H1B, he was refused pursuant to INA 212(a)(3)(A).  This time, the degree was not the issue, it was his mandatory military service in Iran. However, this client never did the military service because he was able to delay service due to school or other reasons and eventually left for Canada. We were able to work with relevant US agencies to prove that he never served in the Iranian military and he was able to secure his H1B visa! 

Do you have a similar inadmissibility problem?  If so, contact our office and we’ll see if we can correct it for you.

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(2)(D)(i)

by

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(2)(D)(i)

When a foreign national tries to enter the U.S., CBP can deny the entry if CBP believes the foreign national engaged in prostitution within the last 10 years or because they desire to enter the US to engage in prostitution. This generally results in a 10 year ban but CBP can apply additional penalties as they deem applicable.  Let’s highlight two recent successful cases where we were able to remove these charges from our client’s records.

  1. A client from the UK was travelling to the US on the ESTA program but was stopped by CBP at the airport. He was questioned about some online materials that he made on one of his social media accounts and his phone was confiscated and scanned. CBP found some emails that they felt were questionable and our client decided the best thing to do was to remain silent. As a result, his entry was refused and he was deemed inadmissible pursuant to section INA 212(a)(2)(D)(i).  Fortunately, because the emails were ambiguous and they had no other strong evidence to support their finding of inadmissibility, we were able to get the decision reviewed and reversed in less than 4 months.
  2. Another client, a massage therapist, appeared for her immigrant visa interview and was questioned about her past work as a massage therapist in Taiwan. Although she never worked as a prostitute, the Consular officer told her that the massage parlour where she worked had a bad reputation. She became very nervous and after a series of questions, she was informed that her visa was refused and that she was inadmissible due to section INA 212(a)(2)(D)(i) and 212(a)(6)(c)(i).  This was a very difficult case as it is hard to prove that she was honest and did not engage in prostitution.  After some investigation, we learned that one of her previous coworkers held a vendetta against our client. She had contacted the Consulate prior to our client’s visa application and lied that our client was engaging in prostitution at the massage parlour. We were able to clear her name but it took more than 13 months to resolve the case. Ultimately, she was able to obtain her visa and she is now in the United States.

Do you have a similar inadmissibility problem?  If so, contact our office and we’ll see if we can correct it for you.

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(II)

by

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(II)

When a foreign national tries to enter the U.S., CBP can deny the entry if CBP believes the foreign national intends to remain in the US permanently but does not have a dual intent nonimmigrant visa nor an immigrant visa. CBP can either allow the foreign national to withdraw the application or order expedited removal which carries a five year ban.  CBP can apply additional penalties as they deem applicable.  Let’s highlight two recent successful cases where we were able to remove these charges from our client’s records.

  1. In February 2023, our client from India informed us that he was previously refused entry to the US under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), removed pursuant to 235(b)(1), and was also charged with fraud under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).  He told us that this happened more than 10 years prior and that some other lawyers said that nothing could be done to fix it.  Apparently, back in 2012, he and his wife tried to enter the US as tourists but in different traveling parties and CBP thought they were trying to hide the fact that they were together to increase their chances to enter the US successfully.

    We filed our client’s appeal in April of 2023 and heard back just two months later that we had won the case.  The five year ban from the removal had expired on its own since it had been so long since the incident but we were able to get the fraud charge cleared and since our client had immigrated to Canada several years prior, he was able to enter the US without applying for a visa and the INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) determination was no longer an issue.
  2. Another client came to us in March 2023 and told us that because she previously attended Silicon Valley University, CBP refused to allow her entry to the US as an H1B holder.  CBP cancelled her H1B visa, refused her entry pursuant to INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). CBP used their authority under INA 235(b)(1) to perform an expedited removal and barred her from returning to the US for 5 years.  After spending a significant amount of time to build a strong case, we were able to file her appeal in May of 2023. We heard back in July 2023 that we won her case and she was instructed to apply for a new H1B visa.  We assisted her with her visa interview, got her visa approved, and she was able to reenter the United States to reunite with her family.

Do you have a similar inadmissibility problem?  If so, contact our office and we’ll see if we can correct it for you.

Proclamation 10043

by

Proclamation 10043 – Suspension of Entry as Nonimmigrants of Certain Students and Researchers From the People’s Republic of China

The entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant of any national of the PRC seeking to enter the United States pursuant to an F or J visa to study or conduct research in the United States, except for a student seeking to pursue undergraduate study, and who either receives funding from or who currently is employed by, studies at, or conducts research at or on behalf of, or has been employed by, studied at, or conducted research at or on behalf of, an entity in the PRC that implements or supports the PRC’s “military-civil fusion strategy” is hereby suspended.

Some applicants were refused visa or entry pursuant to Proclamation 10043 were also found to be inadmissible pursuant to INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i) Misrepresentation  or INA 212(a)(1)(a)(iii) Physical or Mental Disorder.

INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i) Misrepresentation

This provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits the admission of any alien who has misrepresented a material fact in order to obtain a visa or other immigration benefit. This includes individuals who have lied about their educational or employment history, their ties to the PRC, or their involvement in military-civil fusion activities.

INA 212(a)(1)(a)(iii) Physical or Mental Disorder

This provision of the INA prohibits the admission of any alien who is mentally or physically unable to care for themselves or who is likely to become a public charge. This includes individuals who have a history of mental illness, a physical disability that would prevent them from working, or a chronic medical condition that would require extensive medical care.

Resolutions to Refusals Due to Proclamation 10043

If you have been deemed inadmissible due to Proclamation 10043, we can help you challenge that determination and request that it be removed from your record. We have successfully helped many innocent people win their cases. We can help you.  Please feel free to call us at 305-515-0613 or email us at info@messersmithlaw.com.

What is a Student Visa Abuser? Understanding INA 212(a)(6)(G).

by

What is a student visa abuser?

A student visa abuser is a person who obtains a student visa to enter a country, but then does not use it for its intended purpose of studying. Instead, they may work illegally, not attend classes, or engage in other activities that violate the terms of their visa.  A 212(a)(6)(G) charge comes with a five year ban from entering the United States.

What happens if you violate student visa?

If you violate the terms of your student visa, there are a number of potential consequences that may result. Some of the most common include:

  1. Revocation of visa: The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has the authority to revoke your student visa if they determine that you have violated its terms. This can result in you being required to leave the country immediately.
  2. Ineligibility for future visas: If your student visa is revoked, you may be deemed ineligible for future immigration benefits, including future student visas.
  3. Deportation: If you are found to have violated the terms of your student visa, you may be subject to deportation proceedings.
  4. Barred from reentry: A violation of student visa can lead to a bar on reentry to the country, which can make it difficult or impossible for you to return to the United States in the future.
  5. Criminal charges: In some cases, violating the terms of your student visa may be considered a criminal offense, which could result in fines, imprisonment or both.
  6. Academic penalties: Your school or university may also take action against you if you are found to be in violation of your student visa. This could include being expelled from the school or losing your scholarship.

Can F-1 students be deported?

Yes, F-1 students can be deported if they violate the terms of their visa or if they engage in certain criminal activities. Examples of such violations can include failing to maintain a full course of study, working without proper authorization, or committing a crime. If an F-1 student is facing deportation, they may be able to contest the decision through a process called “removal proceedings.”

Is there a waiver available for INA 212(a)(6)(G)?

Yes, the standard 212(d)(3) waiver is available but in situations where you feel that you did you violate the term of your F1 visa and you should not have been accused of being a student visa abuser, there is a path to challenge the 212(a)(6)(G) determination to get it removed from your record.

If you have a similar case, contact our office through our website or give us a call at 305 515 0613. We look forward to helping you win your case like we have for thousands of other clients.