212(a)(6)(E)

INA 212(a)(6)(E) Waiver

by

What Is Inadmissibility Under INA 212(a)(6)(E)

Under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person can be found inadmissible to the United States for engaging in alien smuggling. This means that at some point, the individual assisted or attempted to assist someone in entering the US illegally. This ground of inadmissibility applies even if no money was exchanged and can include helping family members cross the border without proper documentation.

A finding of inadmissibility under 212(a)(6)(E) carries severe immigration consequences, including:

  • Being barred from obtaining a visa, green card, or other immigration benefits
  • Permanent inadmissibility, unless a waiver is granted or the inadmissibility is rescinded
  • Increased scrutiny at consular interviews or ports of entry

However, for certain individuals, not only is a waiver of inadmissibility is available but we can petition the appropriate government agency to remove the 212(a)(6)(E) charge from their records so it will no longer prevent them from obtaining a US visa and entering the country.

Who Qualifies for a 212(a)(6)(E) Waiver

A waiver for a smuggling-related inadmissibility finding is only available to specific individuals, including:

  • Lawful permanent residents who are applying for reentry
  • Certain visa applicants who are seeking legal entry
  • Spouses, parents, sons, or daughters of US citizens or lawful permanent residents

To be approved for a waiver, the applicant must demonstrate that their removal or continued inadmissibility would cause extreme hardship to their US citizen or lawful permanent resident family members.

Who Qualifies to have their 212(a)(6)(E) Charge Rescinded

Rescinding a smuggling-related inadmissibility finding is available to many individuals, including:

  • Individuals Wrongfully Accused of Smuggling Due to Misinterpretation of Facts
  • Minors Who Were Classified as Smugglers for Actions Taken Under Parental Direction
  • Legal Permanent Residents or Visa Holders Facing Smuggling Allegations Based on Past Conduct That No Longer Applies

Each case is different, and challenging a smuggling determination requires strong legal arguments and supporting evidence. If you or someone you know has been deemed inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(E), legal action may be possible to remove the charge and restore immigration eligibility.

How We Have Helped Clients Obtain a 212(a)(6)(E) Waiver

Case 1: African Tourist on a B-2 Visa Wrongfully Accused of Smuggling a Child

A woman from Nigeria traveling on a B-2 tourist visa was accused of alien smuggling under INA 212(a)(6)(E) when she arrived at JFK Airport with her niece, whom she planned to care for during a family emergency. CBP officers suspected that she was bringing the child to the U.S. illegally without proper guardianship or immigration authorization. Despite her explanation, her visa was canceled on the spot, and she was deported with a permanent bar on re-entry.

Her family in the U.S. reached out to us, and we immediately began challenging the smuggling charge. We filed a legal challenge with the Department of State and CBP, demonstrating that she did not engage in alien smuggling. After months of legal advocacy, we successfully removed the 212(a)(6)(E) charge from her record, allowing her to apply for a new visa and regain her ability to travel to the U.S. legally.

Case 2: Waiver Granted for a Mother Who Helped Her Child Enter the U.S.

A mother from Central America entered the U.S. without inspection years ago, bringing her young child with her. When she later applied for a green card through marriage to a U.S. citizen, she was deemed inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(E) because the government considered her actions to be alien smuggling.

We filed an I-601 waiver on her behalf, arguing that she was acting in the best interests of her child and not engaging in smuggling for financial gain. We also demonstrated extreme hardship to her U.S. citizen spouse and child if she were denied her green card. The waiver was approved, the smuggling charge was waived, and she obtained her lawful permanent resident status.

Case 3: Business Owner Wrongfully Accused of Smuggling Employees

A foreign entrepreneur with a valid E-2 investor visa was accused of facilitating the illegal entry of workers after a former employee falsely claimed that the business owner had arranged for unauthorized foreign employees to enter the U.S. The consulate revoked his visa and placed a 212(a)(6)(E) bar on his record, preventing him from returning to the U.S.

We gathered documentation proving that all employees were hired legally and that the accusations were false and based on a misunderstanding. After submitting a legal challenge to the U.S. consulate and Department of State, we successfully had the smuggling charge removed, and his visa was reinstated. He was able to return to the U.S. and continue running his business legally.

Need Help Removing a 212(a)(6)(E) Charge? Contact Us Today

If you have been deemed inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(E) for alien smuggling, you may still have options. Whether you qualify for a waiver, a legal challenge, or an appeal, we can help you fight the charge and regain your immigration status.

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)(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.

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(6)(e) & INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i)

by

Our client, a Chinese citizen, entered the US along with her two minor children as tourists.  During their trip in the US, she enrolled them in school for approximately two months before they all returned to China.  They left before their period of authorized stay expired.  Later on when their visas expired, she returned to the US Embassy to renew her tourist visa and apply for student visas for her children.  However, she was refused  pursuant to section INA 212(a)(6)(E) and INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i) while her children were given a 214(b) refusal.

INA 212(a)(6)(E) relates to smuggling or helping someone obtain a visa or enter the US illegally or for a purpose inconsistent with the visa type obtained or applied for.

INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i) relates to making a fraudulent statement or producing fake documents in order to obtain a visa or procure entry to the United States.

The US Embassy accused our client of misrepresenting the purpose of her trip to the US when she applied for her visa and for violating immigration rules when she enrolled her kids in school when they were in B2 visa status.  These inadmissibility charges rendered it nearly impossible for her or her children to ever obtain visas again to enter the United States but we were able to present a strong defense on her behalf to both the US Department of State and the US Embassy which ultimately resulted in the removal of both charges from her record so she and her children became eligible for any type of US visa.  We then helped her secure a new tourist visa and two student visas for her children.

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