Success Stories

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(2)(c)(i)

by

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(2)(c)(i)

In January of 2018 a Hollywood talent agency informed us that one of their clients applied for a visa nearly six months ago and after a lengthy delay due to administrative processing was just refused pursuant to INA 212(a)(2)(c)(i).  We spoke to their client and learned that during his interview, the Consular officer repeatedly questioned his work, his contacts, and made numerous inquiries about his previous manager.  We agreed to take the case.

Our client assured us that he was never a drug trafficker and he wasn’t associated with anyone who was.  He speculated that the Embassy believed that his previous manager was involved.  Winning a INA 212(a)(2)(c)(i) case is complicated because of the “reason to believe” standard.  The Embassy may refuse a visa under INA 212(a)(2)(c)(i) if he or she has a reason to believe the visa applicant is or has been a trafficker or an abettor of a trafficker.

After petitioning the Embassy for further information we were able to learn that they believed our client’s former manager was a drug trafficker and because our client was paid through his manager, their position was that our client was involved.  After an extensive fact finding mission, we were able to prove that our client was not involved in drug trafficking in any capacity and we were able to have the charge completely removed from his record.

Thereafter, we helped the talent agency sponsor this actor for a O1 visa and at his next appointment with the Embassy everything went smoothly and he was able to enter the US without any further issue.  Do you have a similar inadmissibility issue?  If so, contact our office and we’ll see if we can correct this for you.

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(6)(c)(ii)

by

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(6)(c)(ii)

In October of 2001, our client wanted to enter the US but did not have a visa.  She was introduced a man named Hamid in Toronto, who offered to take her for $2,000 and told her that he could get her in legally.   Hamid drove her to the Seattle port of entry and a CBP officer stopped them and questioned them separately.  Separately, Hamid told the CBP officer that our client was a US citizen and produced his own daughter’s US birth certificate claiming that it belonged to our client.  At the same time, when our client was questioned separately, she stated that she was an Indian citizen and produced her Indian passport.  She was refused entry.

Our client later applied for an immigrant visa through the US consulate in Mumbai, India.  Based on her previous encounter with CBP, which occurred nearly 20 years ago, the Consular Officer found our client ineligible under Section 212(a)(6)(c)(ii).  She protested and attempted to argue the matter but she was dismissed and was told she would never enter the US.

When our client came to us, she felt she had no chance of ever entering the US but wanted to see if there was any possibility for a waiver.  Under current rules, she would never be eligible for an immigrant visa waiver.  When we told her this she was distraught but we told her that she had one other option.  Because Hamid was the one who told the CBP officer that she was a US citizen, we felt we had a strong chance to overturn the Consular Officer’s decision.  And that is exactly what we did.  Just 3 months after we took her case, we were able to get the INA 212(a)(6)(c)(ii) charge completely removed from her record and she was able to obtain her immigrant visa.

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

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.

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.