212(a)(7)(A)(i)(i)

Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) & 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(II) Successful Cases

by

Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) & 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) renders an immigrant inadmissible if, at the time of application for admission, they lack a valid, unexpired immigrant visa or other required entry documents.

This provision applies exclusively to intending immigrants. Nonimmigrants are subject to different documentation requirements under INA 212(a)(7)(B).

Under INA 212(k), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may, at its discretion, waive this ineligibility for an immigrant visa applicant who was unaware of their ineligibility and could not have reasonably detected it. Such waivers are typically granted in cases where the applicant had no prior knowledge of the documentation deficiency and had no means to ascertain it. ​

Successful Cases:

Case 1:

A client attempting to enter the United States to visit her boyfriend was denied entry by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), citing INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Her B-2 tourist visa was subsequently revoked.  She reapplied for a B2 visa and was refused under INA 214(b). After consulting with us, we successfully assisted her in obtaining a new B-2 visa, enabling her to visit her boyfriend.

Case 2:

A client from the United Kingdom sought entry into the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program but was denied by CBP, citing INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and INA 212(a)(2)(D)(i), resulting in a five-year entry ban. CBP suspected her of engaging in prostitution without substantial evidence. We intervened by presenting a robust legal argument that clarified the misunderstanding. Consequently, CBP rescinded the charges, and she regained her eligibility to enter the United States.​

Case 3:

An H-1B visa holder was refused entry under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(II) and INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). The employer had changed the end client without informing him prior to his travel to the U.S., leading CBP to suspect fraud due to the end client change. We provided compelling evidence demonstrating the client’s lack of intent to deceive. This clarification led to a favorable resolution of his case.​

Need Help Removing 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) & 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(II) Charges? Contact Us Today

If you have been refused entry due to 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) or 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(II), you still have options. Whether you qualify for a legal challenge, a waiver, or a new visa we can help you overcome this problem and regain your immigration status. Call my office at (305) 515-0613 or email info@messersmithlaw.com to discuss your case. We can help you understand your options, collect the right documents, and protect your ability to live, study, or work in the US Let us guide you through this and get your status back on track.

Documentary Requirements, Expedited Removal, and Grounds of Inadmissibility: INA 212(a)(7)(A) Explained

by

INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(II) applies when an immigrant’s visa fails to comply with statutory provisions, such as being improperly issued or invalidated by misrepresentation or fraud. Without proper documentation, an applicant is inadmissible and will be refused entry and may be removed.

One of the most serious consequences of being deemed inadmissible under INA 212(a)(7)(A) is expedited removal under INA 235(b)(1). Expedited removal allows immigration officers to summarily remove individuals from the U.S. without a hearing before an immigration judge if they are found inadmissible. Common scenarios leading to inadmissibility and expedited removal include traveling with an expired or fraudulent visa, lacking derivative visas for dependents, or presenting documentation that does not comply with the terms of admission. In some cases, these issues stem from administrative errors, while in others, they arise from applicant misunderstandings. Regardless of the cause, the consequences can be severe, including a five-year bar on reentry for those removed under INA 235(b)(1).

INA 212(a)(7)(A) itself does not come with a ban but if it is accompanied by a removal order, misrepresentation determination or other similar issue, there will be a ban – sometimes for 5 years and sometimes for life. Waivers may be available depending on your circumstances, but a oftentimes the better option is to seek reconsideration of the expedited removal order or inadmissibility determination if it was issued in error. Legal representation is vital in navigating these options and ensuring that all necessary documentation is submitted correctly to avoid future complications.

Even small errors can lead to inadmissibility or expedited removal, making legal guidance essential. If you or someone you know faces challenges under these provisions, contact my office today at 305-515-0613 or info@messersmithlaw.com. We are here to assist you.

INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) Expedited Removal Successful Case: Overcoming a 5-Year Entry Bar

by

Our client, a successful businessman from the UK, faced a significant hurdle when he was refused entry to the U.S. and barred for five years. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) believed he had failed to properly disclose a misdemeanor from 25 years ago that had been expunged. Despite having traveled to the U.S. numerous times for business and pleasure without any issues, this incident resulted in a directive from the CBP to apply for a different visa after the five-year period to conduct business in the U.S.

Understanding the urgency and importance of frequent travel to the U.S. for his business, he reached out to us for assistance.

We promptly engaged with CBP in an effort to remove the five-year bar. After persistent efforts and coordination with two different CBP offices, we successfully had the bar lifted. Subsequently, we assisted the client in obtaining an L1 visa, which we determined to be more suitable for his business needs.

If you are facing a similar situation and need our help, please contact us at 305-515-0613 or info@messersmithlaw.com. We are here to assist you.

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) + Expedited Removal Under 235(b)

by

When a foreign national tries to enter the U.S., CBP can deny the entry if CBP believes the foreign national  intends to remain in the US permanently but does not have a dual intent nonimmigrant visa nor an immigrant visa. This generally results in an expedited removal order which comes with a five year ban from entering the United States.  Let’s highlight two recent successful cases where we were able to remove these charges from our client’s records.

  1. A client from Brazil sought entry to the United States for a business conference but was denied entry due to INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and removed. CBP believed the client lacked proper documentation for the intended stay. However, upon review, we discovered errors in the CBP’s assessment. Through meticulous documentation and persuasive arguments, we appealed the decision to the CBP. As a result, the removal order was lifted, and our client was granted a visa, allowing them to attend the conference and pursue their business endeavors in the U.S.
  2. A family from Mexico planned a vacation to the United States but encountered unexpected challenges upon arrival. Despite having valid tourist visas, they were detained by CBP at the border due to suspicions of insufficient documentation under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and removed. After thorough investigation and advocacy, we clarified the family’s intentions and provided additional evidence of their ties to their home country. Our efforts resulted in a huge victory and the 5 year ban was erased, allowing the family to reenter as tourist and enjoy their vacation without further hindrance.

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)(7)(A)(i)(I) and INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(II)

by

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(II)

When a foreign national tries to enter the U.S., CBP can deny the entry if CBP believes the foreign national intends to remain in the US permanently but does not have a dual intent nonimmigrant visa nor an immigrant visa. CBP can either allow the foreign national to withdraw the application or order expedited removal which carries a five year ban.  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. In February 2023, our client from India informed us that he was previously refused entry to the US under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), removed pursuant to 235(b)(1), and was also charged with fraud under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).  He told us that this happened more than 10 years prior and that some other lawyers said that nothing could be done to fix it.  Apparently, back in 2012, he and his wife tried to enter the US as tourists but in different traveling parties and CBP thought they were trying to hide the fact that they were together to increase their chances to enter the US successfully.

    We filed our client’s appeal in April of 2023 and heard back just two months later that we had won the case.  The five year ban from the removal had expired on its own since it had been so long since the incident but we were able to get the fraud charge cleared and since our client had immigrated to Canada several years prior, he was able to enter the US without applying for a visa and the INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) determination was no longer an issue.
  2. Another client came to us in March 2023 and told us that because she previously attended Silicon Valley University, CBP refused to allow her entry to the US as an H1B holder.  CBP cancelled her H1B visa, refused her entry pursuant to INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). CBP used their authority under INA 235(b)(1) to perform an expedited removal and barred her from returning to the US for 5 years.  After spending a significant amount of time to build a strong case, we were able to file her appeal in May of 2023. We heard back in July 2023 that we won her case and she was instructed to apply for a new H1B visa.  We assisted her with her visa interview, got her visa approved, and she was able to reenter the United States to reunite with her family.

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

INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(i) Expedited Removal

by

INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(i) Expedited Removal

When applying for entry to the United States, a foreign national in possession of a valid visa must demonstrate to the CBP officer at the port of entry that they are eligible to enter in the visa classification requested.  For example, a B2 tourist must demonstrate that they will return home after their period  of authorized stay, have sufficient funds to cover their trip without working, and actually be coming for a tourist purpose.  An H1B worker must show that he or she is truly coming to work for their petitioning employer and have not previously violated their immigration status.

To determine if the applicant is eligible for entry, they may search the applicant’s luggage, phone, email, confirm hotel reservations, call the potential employer or do any other investigation deemed necessary.  Upon conclusion, if the CBP officer does not believe the visa holder is eligible for entry under the requested classification then he will cancel the applicant’s visa which renders the applicant inadmissible under INA 212(a)(7)(A) or INA 212(a)(7)(B).  Then CBP may decide that the applicant’s actions warrant removal from the US and will order the applicant removed and barred from entry for 5 years.

Most our of clients who encounter this problem or potential problem do not seek our help until after the removal order is issued.  In some cases, there are methods for getting the removal order rescinded and in others, a waiver may be a possibility.

In 2020, we were contacted by a potential client who was a frequent traveler to the US who used a B1/B2 for entry.  She always entered for a business purpose which was to visit certain business contacts related to her foreign business enterprise.  She never worked or conducted business in the United States.  Unfortunately, during her latest attempted entry, CBP searched her phone and based on some files located therein, believed that her actions constituted unauthorized employment.  CBP cancelled her visa, removed her from the country and instructed her to obtain a work visa for future entries to the US.  When she described her previous actions in the US, we believed that it did not constitute employment nor was a work visa required.  We helped her gather evidence to prove her innocence of CBP’s accusations and we were able to get the removal order rescinded so she could continue her business trips as done before.

In 2021, we were contacted by potential client who applied for entry as an H4 visa holder.  She had plenty of evidence that her husband was abiding by the terms of his H1B visa and that they had a genuine marriage.  However, she was previously in the US on a student visa and CBP asked her many questions regarding her previous OPT employment.  CBP discovered that her OPT employer was on a list of fraudulent employers that gave out fake employment letters for a fee.  CBP cancelled her H4 visa, removed her from the country, and barred her for 5 years.  When she described her work with her previous OPT employer, we felt that we could demonstrate that she was the victim of OPT fraud, not the perpetrator.  We helped her gather evidence to prove her innocence of CBP’s accusations and we were able to get the removal order rescinded so she could reunite with her husband in the US with an H4 visa.

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.