INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i)

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.

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.