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

by

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.

Securing EB-1 Extraordinary Ability Approval Without Citations or Publications: A Successful Case

by

Achieving an EB-1 approval for extraordinary ability without citations or publications is a rare feat, but with the right legal strategy, it is possible. Our client, a talented and innovative entrepreneur, faced this exact challenge. Despite having no formal citations or academic publications, his groundbreaking work in the technology sector had significantly impacted the industry. Determined to secure his future in the United States, he turned to our firm for expert guidance.

Our legal team meticulously crafted a compelling case, focusing on the unique aspects of his career that demonstrated his extraordinary ability. We highlighted his numerous patents, awards, and recognition within the industry, along with his role in pioneering cutting-edge technologies. We were able to build a robust case that showcased his exceptional talent and influence.

After a thorough review process, our client’s EB-1 petition was approved in 3 days through premium processing, despite the absence of traditional academic citations and publications. This success story is a testament to the importance of personalized legal strategies and the ability to think outside the box. Our client’s journey proves that extraordinary ability can be recognized in various forms and that with the right legal support, achieving an EB-1 visa is possible even under unconventional circumstances.

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.

Triumphing Over an INA 212(a)(3)(A) Determination: A Journey to Justice

by

When our client received an INA 212(a)(3)(A) determination from the Consulate, accusing him of engaging in espionage and other activities against the United States, his future seemed bleak. This determination barred him from entering the country, threatening his career and the life he had built with his American spouse. Desperate to clear his name and reunite with his family, he sought our expertise to navigate this complex and intimidating legal challenge.

Our team immediately recognized the gravity of the situation and the need for a meticulous and strategic approach. We began by conducting an exhaustive review of the evidence presented by the Consulate, identifying several key areas where the accusations lacked substantiation. Our legal strategy focused on discrediting the allegations by presenting compelling evidence of our client’s legitimate professional activities and his unwavering loyalty to the United States. We gathered an extensive array of documentation to build a robust case for his appeal.

After months of rigorous preparation and persistent advocacy, we successfully overturned the INA 212(a)(3)(A) determination. The appeal process was challenging, but our client’s determination and our team’s dedication paid off. The Consulate ultimately recognized the baseless nature of the accusations, allowing our client to enter the United States and continue his life with his family. This success story demonstrates the critical importance of skilled legal representation and the power of a well-prepared appeal in overcoming 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.

Overturning INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) an Expedited Removal and 5-Year Ban: A Successful Case

by

Facing an expedited removal by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and a subsequent 5-year ban from re-entering the United States was a devastating blow for our client. A dedicated professional with a spotless record, he was accused of misrepresentation during a routine entry inspection. The removal and ban threatened his career and personal life, separating him from his family and the opportunities he had worked so hard to achieve. Desperate to overturn this unjust decision, he turned to our firm for help.

Our legal team quickly recognized the urgency and complexity of his case. We conducted a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding his removal, identifying key procedural errors and misunderstandings by CBP officers. Our strategy focused on compiling robust evidence to support his innocence.

Through diligent preparation and strategic advocacy, we successfully appealed the expedited removal and overturned the 5-year ban. The appeal process was challenging, but our client’s perseverance and our dedicated efforts led to a favorable outcome. The decision was reversed, allowing him to re-enter the United States and continue his life without interruption. This successful case shows the importance of skilled legal representation and the possibility of achieving justice, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Our client’s experience demonstrates that with the right support, overcoming the challenges of an expedited removal and re-entry ban is possible.

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.

Overcoming INA 212(a)(6)(E) Inadmissibility: A Successful Case

by

Facing an INA 212(a)(6)(E) charge for alien smuggling can be a daunting experience, but with the right legal guidance, overcoming this challenge is possible. Our client, a dedicated father, found himself in this exact situation after attempting to reunite with his family in the United States. Accused of smuggling his younger brother across the border, he was deemed inadmissible and faced the risk of being permanently separated from his loved ones.

Our legal team meticulously reviewed his case, identifying critical inconsistencies and leveraging the nuances of immigration law. Through diligent preparation and compelling representation, we were able to present a strong case to the immigration authorities.

After a rigorous legal battle, we successfully won his case on appeal, overturning the INA 212(a)(6)(E) charge. This victory not only allowed him to obtain a visa to enter the United States but also set a precedent for others facing similar challenges. Our client’s story is a testament to the importance of skilled legal advocacy and achieving justice. His perseverance and our dedicated efforts ensured that he could provide for his family and contribute to his community, proving that with the right support, overcoming an INA 212(a)(6)(E) charge is attainable.

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)(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.

Section 306 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act

by

What is the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act?

The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 was enacted shortly following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Its primary purpose was to bolster national security by improving the screening of visa applicants, enhancing border security measures, and implementing a biometric entry-exit system to track the movements of foreigners in the United States.

What is Section 306 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act?

Section 306 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 establishes restrictions on the issuance of visas to individuals from countries designated as state sponsors of international terrorism, with exceptions provided for cases where the individual is deemed not to pose a threat to U.S. safety or national security.

Which Countries are Designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism?

  1. Cuba;
  2. North Korea;
  3. Iran; and
  4. Syria.

What are the Standards and Criteria Used to Make this Determination Against a Visa Applicant?

Exceptions to the restriction on issuing visas to individuals from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism are provided for cases where the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and other appropriate U.S. agencies, determines that the individual does not pose a threat to U.S. safety or national security.

These standards and criteria include a range of factors aimed at assessing the individual’s background, intentions, and potential risk to national security which include the following:

  1. Criminal History;
  2. Terrorist Connections;
  3. Travel History;
  4. Biographical Information;
  5. Interviews and Interrogations; and
  6. Intelligence Information.

Resolutions to Refusals Due to Section 306 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act

If you have been deemed inadmissible due to Section 306 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act and you believe the determination was unjustly made, 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.

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.

H1B Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) Received Due to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)

by

Foreign nationals may be inadmissible if he or she made a false representation in order to obtain an immigration benefit. 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.

We take pride in our track record of helping foreign nationals and their US employers overcome difficult NOIRs issued by USCIS, especially in cases where problems related to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) are involved.

In a recent case, a client approached us worried that he might lose his H1B status. Six months after his H1B petition was approved, USCIS made a site visit to his work location. He was not at work during the visit and USCIS found several issues which lead them to believe that our client was not working as described in the petition. However, several months passed without anything happening and our client thought everything would be fine. However, six months after the site visit, USCIS decided to issue an NOIR to the employer and gave them just 30 days to respond to 7 different issues they had with the petition.

We understand that such notices can be deeply unsettling but they are not the end of the road. Our firm swiftly stepped into action, meticulously crafting a point-by-point response to the USCIS’s concerns. With more than 20 years of experience in immigration law, we challenged the NOIR by collecting substantial evidence, preparing comprehensive documentation, and building a robust defense arguing our client’s compliance with H1B requirements. Our focused and aggressive approach was designed to address not only the immediate revocation threat but also to solidify our client’s standing with USCIS going forward.

This is just one of many success stories that illustrate our expertise and commitment to securing positive results for our clients. If you or your employees have been served with a NOIR, time is of the essence. Don’t hesitate to reach out to us. Contact our office and we’ll work together to reach a favorable outcome in your case.

H1B RFE Received Due to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)

by

Foreign nationals may be inadmissible if he or she made a false representation in order to obtain an immigration benefit. 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.

We take pride in our track record of helping foreign nationals and their US employers overcome difficult RFEs issued by USCIS, especially in cases where problems related to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) are involved.

In a recent case, a client approached us in a state of panic after receiving an RFE for his H1B petition. His application had been submitted by his company’s lawyer who was not able to properly explain our client’s previous involvement with AZTech. During his Optional Practical Training (OPT), the client had paid for training with AZTech, only to later discover that the company was fraudulent. Although he left the company as soon as he discovered the company was fake, USCIS brought up the issues several years later in his H1B petition.

USCIS believed our client had committed fraud due to his association with AZTech during his OPT. This not only raised questions about potential misrepresentation under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), but also put the legitimacy of his F1 student visa status into question, stating that they may classify his stay as unlawful.

Facing such complicated inadmissibility issues, the client wisely chose to retain our services. Our team meticulously prepared a comprehensive legal argument to accompany his RFE response. The outcome? USCIS concurred with our position, approved the H1B petition, and issued an I-94 to our client.

This is just one of many success stories that illustrate our expertise and commitment to securing positive results for our clients. If you’re facing similar immigration challenges, don’t hesitate to reach out to us. Contact our office and we’ll work together to reach a favorable outcome in your case.