Overcoming an INA 212(a)(2)(D)(i) Charge: A Victory for Our Client with an OnlyFans Account

When our client was charged with INA 212(a)(2)(D)(i) for alleged involvement in prostitution due to her OnlyFans account, her dreams of living in the United States seemed shattered. The Consulate’s determination not only threatened her immigration status but also unjustly tarnished her reputation. Seeking justice and the chance to clear her name, she turned to our law firm for expert legal assistance.

Our legal team immediately recognized the importance of addressing the misconceptions and biases surrounding her case. We conducted an in-depth review of her OnlyFans content and financial records, demonstrating that her online presence was a legitimate and legal means of self-expression and income. Our strategy involved gathering evidence to highlight the distinction between consensual adult content creation and illegal activities. We also provided a thorough legal analysis, emphasizing the misapplication of INA 212(a)(2)(D)(i) in her situation.

Through rigorous preparation and persuasive representation, we successfully appealed the Consulate’s determination. The appeal process was challenging, but our client’s courage and our dedicated efforts led to a favorable outcome. The charges were overturned, allowing her to pursue her dreams in the United States without the shadow of unfounded allegations. This success story highlights the importance of skilled legal advocacy and the power of challenging unjust determinations, demonstrating that with the right support, it is possible to overcome even the most daunting immigration obstacles.

Do you have a similar case or one that seems hopeless? Don’t be discouraged. We have successfully handled many complex cases. If you are facing 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)(2)(D)(i)

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.