INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i)

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and 212(a)(9)(B)

by

Any foreign national who has been unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days faces a three-year ban on reentry, and those unlawfully present for one year or more face a ten-year ban. However, there are exceptions and nuances in the law that can be leveraged to achieve successful outcomes.

For instance, any alien (other than one lawfully admitted for permanent residence) who has been unlawfully present in the United States for more than 180 days but less than one year, and then voluntarily departs and seeks reentry within three years, is considered inadmissible. Similarly, those unlawfully present for a year or more who seek reentry within ten years are also inadmissible. However, time spent under the age of 18, while a bona fide asylum application is pending, or under family unity protection does not count towards the unlawful presence period. Additionally, VAWA petitioners and victims of severe trafficking can also be exempt from these provisions.

We have successfully assisted many clients in overcoming Notices of Intent to Deny (NOID) due to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and INA 212(a)(9)(B). Here are a few notable success stories:

One of our clients, who had an approved I-140 through the EB1 category and was on an O1 visa, received an NOID. During his in-person interview, USCIS questioned him about his O1 visa application and issued an NOID citing INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for misrepresentation and INA 212(a)(9)(B) for unlawful presence. USCIS argued that his stay on the O1 visa was unlawful due to alleged misrepresentation upon his initial entry to the U.S. We meticulously pieced together all aspects of his case, demonstrating the validity of his claims and ultimately secured a successful outcome.

Another case involved a client sponsored by his U.S. citizen wife. Despite their approved I-130, the client received an NOID citing INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and INA 212(a)(9)(B) for alleged marriage fraud and overstay which related to his previous B2 visa application. Inconsistencies during the I-485 interview raised red flags, complicating their case. We presented a compelling legal argument and provided sufficient evidence to counter the allegations, leading to the approval of the I-485.

These cases highlight the importance of thorough preparation, strategic legal arguments, and a deep understanding of immigration law. If you are facing similar challenges, we are here to help. Please contact us at 305-515-0613 or info@messersmithlaw.com for expert assistance with your immigration needs.

LCA Errors that can Lead to H1B Visa Refusals and INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Inadmissibility Determinations

by

Errors made by the visa applicant in regards to the Labor Condition Application (LCA) can cause significant problems and potentially jeopardize their chances of obtaining an H-1B visa. It’s crucial to avoid common mistakes that can lead to visa denials and inadmissibility determinations under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). Here are some frequent errors and their implications:

Misrepresenting the Terms of the Job Offer: Visa applicants must accurately represent the terms of the job offer in the LCA, including job duties, salary, and working conditions. Any misrepresentation can be considered fraud, leading to a visa denial. It’s essential to provide truthful and precise information to avoid accusations of misrepresentation.

Failing to Comply with the Prevailing Wage: The Department of Labor mandates that H-1B visa holders must be paid the prevailing wage for their job. If an applicant is paid less than the prevailing wage, it violates the LCA and can result in a visa denial. Ensuring compliance with wage requirements is critical to maintaining legal status.

Failing to Disclose Previous Immigration Violations: Visa applicants must disclose any previous immigration violations, such as overstays or unauthorized employment. Failing to disclose such violations can be considered fraud and result in a visa denial. Full transparency regarding immigration history is vital to avoid complications.

Failing to Comply with the Terms of the Visa: H-1B visa holders must adhere to the terms of their visa, including maintaining status, working only for the employer listed on the LCA, and not engaging in unauthorized employment. Non-compliance can lead to visa denial or revocation of visa status. Adhering strictly to visa terms helps ensure continued legal status in the U.S.

Failing to Notify the Department of Labor of Changes: Any changes to the job offer terms, such as job duties, salary, or working conditions, must be reported to the Department of Labor. Failure to report these changes can result in LCA violations and visa denial. Keeping the Department of Labor informed of any job-related changes is crucial.

If an H-1B visa applicant is accused of fraud under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), it’s imperative to take immediate action. Here are steps to potentially resolve the situation and overcome fraud accusations:

  1. Contact Us Immediately: Call us at 305-515-0613 or email us at info@messersmithlaw.com. Our experienced immigration attorney, with over 20 years of experience, can review your case and advise on the best course of action.
  2. Gather Evidence: We will help you gather evidence to refute the fraud allegations, ensuring you have a strong case.
  3. Cooperate with Authorities: We will guide you on how to cooperate fully with authorities, including attending interviews or providing additional documentation as requested.

If you have been accused of fraud or misrepresentation due to a misunderstanding involving your LCA, contact our office through our website or give us a call at 305-515-0613. We look forward to helping you win your case, as we have for thousands of other clients.

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)(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.

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.

Solutions to OPT and STEM OPT allegations of INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) fraud related to AZTech, Wireclass, Global IT Experts, and Findream

by

INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) fraud related to AZTech, Wireclass, Global IT Experts, and Findream

Over the past three years, tens of thousands of F1 visa students have been permanently banned from returning to the United States pursuant to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).  Some students were refused visas at the Embassy abroad and others have been removed from the country from US immigration.  The reason?  Their connection to companies like AZTech, Wireclass, Global IT Experts, and Findream while in OPT status.

OPT is a 12-month work authorization available to F1 visa holders who have been full-time students for at least two consecutive semesters and plan to seek employment in the United States in their fields of study.  Certain F-1 students who receive science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees may apply for a 24-month extension of their post-completion OPT.  A job offer is not required to apply for OPT but foreign students are only allowed a cumulative total of 90 days of unemployment. Many students who had trouble fining employment within 90 days of obtaining their OPT turned to companies such as AZTech, Wireclass, Global IT Experts, and Findream who offered to train and place them in positions within their field.  For many of these students who accepted these offers were asked to pay for training that was never provided and the promised job placement never occurred.  Because these students reported that they found employment through one of these companies but, through no fault of their own, never actually obtained employment, ICE, USCIS, and the US Embassy have taken the position that these students are guilty of immigration fraud.

Those accused of fraud under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) received a lifetime ban from entering the United States and those who were also removed from the US received an addition bar of reentry of five years or longer.  Fortunately for these students, there are several ways to overcome this ground of inadmissibility.  The first being a nonimmigrant visa waiver.  A nonimmigrant visa waiver provides temporary forgiveness of a past fraud charge.  Another option is to dispute the fraud accusation with the relevant government agency that levied the fraud accusation.   We have successfully helped many clients connected with alleged OPT fraud obtain waivers or getting the fraud charges removed from their records.  This is not an easy or simple process but it is very rewarding to clear an innocent person’s name.  Victims of fraud should not be banned from the US. If you have a similar case or would like to avoid this potential problem, 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.

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) & INA INA 212(a)(9)(b)

by

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) & INA INA 212(a)(9)(b)

Our client was employed with US company A from 2017 through 2019 on H1B visa status.  US company B filed a new I-129 for new employment with their firm to begin in 2018.  USCIS approved the I-129 petition but denied the application for a change of status.  In their decision, the USCIS noted that our client could not establish that he was employed with US company A since the company had, unbeknownst to our client, withdrew the previously approved I-129 petition.  Our client then applied for his H1B visa stamp at the US Embassy which was refused pursuant to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and INA 212(a)(9)(B).

INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) relates to a false representation in order to obtain an immigration benefit.

INA 212(a)(9)(B) relates to unlawful presence in the US for more than 180 days.

Even though our client was never notified by US company A nor their attorney that they withdrew his I-129 petition, the US Embassy still accused him of misrepresentation of his prior H-1B visa status in the US and told him that because his petition had been withdrawn he has been out of status the entire time!  While the 212(a)(9)(b) charge carried a temporary bar, the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge is permanent.  We were able to present a strong defense on his behalf to both the US Department of State and the US Embassy which ultimately resulted in the removal of both charges from his record so he was able to obtain a new H-1B visa and reenter the country to work for US company B

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

Immigrant Visa Denial

by

Immigrant Visa Denial

There are many reasons that could lead to an immigrant visa denial.  Over the years, we have successfully helped many people overcome immigrant visa denials and reunite families.  The proper way to overcome an immigrant visa denial is to, first, determine why the immigrant visa was denied originally.  The most common situation is where the visa applicant or petitioner does not file the application or petition correctly and makes errors which the Embassy determines constitute fraud or material misrepresentation.  This would result in an INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i) determination and is a permanent bar from entry to the US.  A waiver may or may not be filed depending on the applicant’s eligibility.  If you believe that the Embassy incorrectly made an INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i) determination, we can challenge the denial decision and request that it be removed from the applicant’s record.  Here are a couple examples of the immigrant visa denials that we were able to fix, including 212(a)(6)(c)(ii), 212(a)(6)(e), and 212(a)(4) denials.

  1. Client was a passenger in a van when she tried to enter the US.  CBP approached the driver and the driver presented a birth certificate and claimed our client was his daughter and that she was born in the US.  However, our client did not speak English and wasn’t aware of what the driver told CBP.  CBP found the client to be inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(c)(ii) False claim to US citizenship.  Later on, our client’s husband sponsored her for an immigrant visa and the Embassy denied the application due to INA 212(a)(6)(c)(ii).  Client sought our help after the immigrant visa denial and we were able to have the INA 212(a)(6)(c)(ii) removed from her record.
  2. Client allowed her sister to take her kids to the US on B2 tourist visa many years ago.  Unknown to our client, her sister enrolled her kids in school while they were in the United States.  Enrolling in school in B2 status is a violation of status.  Later on, our client applied for an H1B visa to enter the US to work but she was denied under INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i) Misrepresentation and INA 212(a)(6)(e) Smuggling.  It wasn’t easy to fix but we were able to overcome both issues so she was able to enter the US.
  3. Client’s sponsor was gainfully employed and sponsored client for an immigrant visa.  The sponsor didn’t present the case properly so client’s immigrant visa was denied due to INA 212(a)(4) Public Charge.  We worked with the government and made sure that the case was properly presented and was able to overcome the INA 212(a)(4) issue.

In the last 17 years, we have successfully handled thousands of cases and some of those cases are extremely complicated but we were able to win them unbelievably successful results for our clients.  If you feel that you have a difficult case and if you don’t see any hope, let us help you.  With our extensive expertise, we will make impossible possible.  Please feel free to contact us at 305 515 0613 or email us at info@messersmithlaw.com