INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i)

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

Embassy Determination of Inadmissibility – Misrepresentation – 212(a)(6)(C)

by

My name is [REDACTED] from [REDACTED]I was last year in [REDACTED] worked like cahier in one company,it was student program. I applied this year for the same situation,but something horrible happend. My friend from my college given me a just one fake paper from university all another papers were regular,I didnt know it was fake cause I already were in USA and I back on the time when my visa issued and everthing was ok. But now consular give me a section 212a6CI ..I wann try everthing to sai thats not my fault and I never couldnt do that cause I already know all rules in ambasy and I never do that to myself with a fake paper cause I know what that mean. Can u please give me some information about this case. Im ready to pay any good advocate for this. And is possible if I marry for american citizen who is really my boyfriend almoust 2 years,this section can be deleted ?

What do you mean, “one fake paper?” Do you mean that you were using a false I-20 to attend school or that you took one false page of the I-20 packet to the Embassy for visa stamping? If you were truly eligible for the F1 visa and the sole issue was for one false page of your I-20 packet, then we can likely get the inadmissibility determination removed from your record. You will need to send us copies of all of your documents for us to see if we can help.

212(a)(6)(C)(i) Fraud or Misrepresentation

by

212(a)(6)(C)(i) Fraud or Misrepresentation

Inadmissibility Series INA 212– Part I

212(a)(6)(C)(i) Fraud or Misrepresentation

Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 lists a series of classes of foreign nationals who are inadmissible to the United States.  Some classes are complete bars and others allow specific types of waivers of inadmissibility.  If you are attempting to enter the Unites States or are already in the United States and you are inadmissible then you will be barred from receiving immigration benefits such as a visa or green card.  There are many ways a foreign national may be deemed inadmissible.  The three most common ways are when he or she applies for a visa at a US Consulate, attempts to enter the US with a visa or applies for an immigration benefit while in the United States.  In making one of these types of immigration applications, an immigration officer can make a determination that the foreign national’s past actions make him or her inadmissible or ineligible for benefits.

If an immigration officer determines that you are inadmissible then you have two options to overcome the determination.  You can either challenge the determination of inadmissibility or apply for a waiver of inadmissibility if the law allows.  In many cases. challenging the determination of inadmissibility is the only option because the foreign national is either not eligible for a waiver or the law does not offer a waiver.

212(a)(6)(C)(i) Fraud or Misrepresentation

In general.-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.

How to obtain a determination that the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Fraud or Misrepresentation ground of inadmissibility was incorrectly made.

No matter which US government agency made the inadmissibility determination, each provides a method to dispute the determination, though each has drastically different processing times. We have achieved successful outcomes by petitioning the US Department of State where the determination was made by the Consulate in as little as 2 weeks. CBP quotes turnaround times of as little as 30 days and USCIS will not offer a time frame. In our experience, the more difficult the situation, the longer it will take to get resolved.

Waiver of Inadmissibility for an Immigrant Visa due to 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Fraud or Misrepresentation

There are two sections of law which allow a foreign national to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility where he or she is ultimately applying for an immigrant visa or permanent residence (green card).

INA 212(i) – The Attorney General may, in the discretion of the Attorney General, waive the application of clause (i) of subsection (a)(6)(C) in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse, son, or daughter of a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the refusal of admission to the United States of such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such an alien 25b/ or, in the case of a VAWA self-petitioner 6aa/ , the alien demonstrates extreme hardship to the alien or the alien’s United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, or qualified alien parent or child.

INA § 237(a)(1)(H) – The provisions of this paragraph relating to the removal of aliens within the United States on the ground that they were inadmissible at the time of admission as aliens described in section 212(a)(6)(C)(i), whether willful or innocent, may, in the discretion of the Attorney General, be waived for any alien (other than an alien described in paragraph (4)(D)) who is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; and was in possession of an immigrant visa or equivalent document and was otherwise admissible to the United States at the time of such admission except for those grounds of inadmissibility specified under paragraphs (5)(A) and (7)(A) of section 212(a) which were a direct result of that fraud or misrepresentation.

Waiver of Inadmissibility for a Non Immigrant Visa due to 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Fraud or Misrepresentation

INA 212(d)(3) – Except as provided in this subsection, an alien (i) 20b/ who is applying for a non immigrant visa and is known or believed by the consular officer to be ineligible for such visa under subsection (a) (other than paragraphs (3)(A)(i)(I), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(iii), (3)(C), 20a/ and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E) of such subsection), may, after approval by the Attorney General of a recommendation by the Secretary of State or by the consular officer that the alien be admitted temporarily despite his inadmissibility, be granted such a visa and may be admitted into the United States temporarily as a non immigrant in the discretion of the Attorney General, or (ii) 20b/ who is inadmissible under subsection (a) (other than paragraphs (3)(A)(i)(I), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(iii), (3)(C), 20a/ and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E) of such subsection), but who is in possession of appropriate documents or is granted a waiver thereof and is seeking admission, may be admitted into the United States temporarily as a non immigrant in the discretion of the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall prescribe conditions, including exaction of such bonds as may be necessary, to control and regulate the admission and return of inadmissible aliens applying for temporary admission under this paragraph.

If you have been determined to be inadmissible, we can help you overcome the determination or obtain a waiver

Many people who are faced with a inadmissibility determination believe that they will never be able to obtain a waiver or enter the US again.  This is simply not true.  For almost all types of inadmissibility classes, a waiver is available and there is always an option to challenge the determination.  We have successfully helped many clients who were determined to be inadmissible and we can assist you.  We believe that with the right approach, there is always a hope to win your case.

Please feel free to contact us at 305-515-0613 or email us at info@messersmithlaw.com if you’d like our assistance.