INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i)

INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i): Misrepresentation in US Immigration FAQs and Solutions

by

Being found inadmissible under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i) is one of the most serious challenges in US immigration law. This section of the Immigration and Nationality Act applies when USCIS or the Department of State determines that a person willfully misrepresented a material fact in order to obtain a visa, green card, or other immigration benefit.

If you or a loved one has been accused of misrepresentation or fraud under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), it’s critical to understand what this law means and how to fight it. Below are the most common FAQs about this ground of inadmissibility.

What Is INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i)?

INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i) states that any person who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has procured) a visa, admission into the US, or any immigration benefit, is inadmissible for life. In short: If USCIS finds you lied or concealed important information, you may be permanently barred from getting a visa or green card.

What Counts as “Misrepresentation”?

Misrepresentation can include:

  • Falsifying information on Form DS-160, DS-260, or I-485
  • Using fake employment letters, bank records, or academic documents
  • Claiming a false marital status or family relationship
  • Failing to disclose prior visa denials, deportations, or immigration violations
  • Listing fraudulent employment (such as “Findream” or other fake OPT employers)
  • Misrepresenting intent at a visa interview (saying you’re visiting but actually planning to stay permanently)

What Is a “Material Fact”?

A fact is considered material if it would have influenced USCIS or a consular officer’s decision to grant or deny your visa or green card.

Example:

  • Forgetting to list a minor traffic ticket is usually not material.
  • Concealing prior unlawful presence or misrepresenting employment is material, and can trigger 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

Is 212(a)(6)(C)(i) a Lifetime Ban?

Yes. A finding of misrepresentation under this section creates a lifetime bar from entering the US or obtaining a green card. However, we have successfully helped many people overcome it through legal challenges or waivers.

How Can You Overcome INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)?

Options may include:

  1. Challenge the Finding
    • If USCIS or the consulate made a mistake, we can argue that no misrepresentation occurred or that the fact was not material.
  2. I-601 Waiver of Inadmissibility
    • If you have a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent, you may apply for a fraud/misrepresentation waiver by showing extreme hardship to your qualifying relative.
  3. I-601A Provisional Waiver (if unlawful presence also applies)
    • In some cases, you may need both a fraud waiver and unlawful presence waiver.
  4. Reopening or Appealing Your Case
    • If the finding was incorrect or based on weak evidence, we can fight it through motions, appeals, or rescission challenges.

What Are Common Examples of 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Cases?

  • OPT Fraud: A student listed fake companies (like Findream) as OPT employers. USCIS alleged misrepresentation, but with legal evidence, some applicants have kept their green cards.
  • Marriage Fraud Allegations: A green card holder accused of entering a sham marriage but later proved the relationship was bona fide.
  • Visa Application Errors: Applicants denied for failing to disclose prior overstays or visa denials.

Can I Still Get a Green Card With 212(a)(6)(C)(i)?

Yes, but only if you successfully fight the finding or obtain a waiver. Without legal help, most applicants will face denial or rescission of status.

Should I Hire a Lawyer for 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Issues?

Absolutely. This is one of the most complex and high-stakes areas of immigration law. An experienced attorney can:

  • Review your case to see if USCIS’s finding is valid.
  • Gather evidence to challenge the misrepresentation.
  • Prepare a hardship waiver application if needed.
  • Defend you in rescission or removal proceedings.

Your Path to Approval Starts with the Right Legal Team

Being accused of fraud or misrepresentation under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) is overwhelming, but it does not have to end your immigration journey. With the right legal strategy, evidence, and waiver applications, many people successfully keep or obtain their U.S. green card. If you’re facing a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) misrepresentation finding, contact us today at 305-515-0613 or email info@messersmithlaw.com. We have successfully fought these cases and helped clients preserve their lawful status in the US.

I-485 Notice of Intent to Deny Due to OPT Fraudulent or Scam Employers, INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), and INA 245(a) or INA 245(c)(2): What It Means and What to Do

by

Many international students on F-1 visas use Optional Practical Training (OPT) as a bridge to employment and eventually a green card. But in recent years, USCIS has increasingly issued I-485 Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) citing employment with fraudulent or scam OPT employers. These NOIDs often reference INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for misrepresentation and INA 245(a) or INA 245(c)(2) for failure to maintain lawful status.

If you’ve received an I-485 NOID based on OPT fraud or alleged violations, it’s important to understand what it means, the risks involved, and what steps you can take to save your case.

Why Does USCIS Issue I-485 NOIDs for OPT Fraud?

Over the past decade, several fake OPT employers and consulting companies have been exposed for creating fraudulent job offers or “benching” practices. Even students who did not knowingly participate have faced immigration consequences simply for listing these employers on their records.

Common issues that trigger an I-485 NOID for OPT include:

  • Working for an employer flagged by ICE or USCIS as fraudulent
  • Being paid without proper W-2s or payroll records
  • “Benching” (being unpaid or out of status between projects)
  • Failing to update SEVIS with accurate employment information
  • Using third party placement agencies that do not meet USCIS standards

When USCIS finds these problems, they may accuse applicants of status violations or misrepresentation. A list of companies have been accused by the US government of being fraudulent or otherwise violating US immigration laws.

DOJ – Sentencing of Weiyun “Kelly” Huang

  • Chinese Businesswoman Sentenced to 37 Months in Federal Prison for Conspiracy to Commit Visa Fraud. This describes how Huang and her companies (Findream, Sinocontech) allowed ~2,693 foreign nationals to list these companies as employers even though they did no real work, and how those companies provided false verifications, offer letters, payroll/tax documents, etc. Department of Justice

ICE (via DHS) – Indictment of Huang / Findream / Sinocontech

  • “Chinese businesswoman indicted on student-visa, work-visa fraud charges.” This ICE release from 2019 details the charges of conspiracy to commit visa fraud and visa fraud against Findream LLC and Sinocontech LLC; it outlines their scheme: fake verifications, offer letters, advertisements targeting F-1 students. ICE

DOJ – Illinois District Court Document

  • The charging document laying out allegations: that Huang, Findream, and Sinocontech conspired to falsely claim employment for many F-1 and H-1B visa applicants, including false I-983/OPT training plans, payroll, issuance of 1099 forms, etc. Department of Justice

OPT fraud issues have also been associated with

  • Findream LLC
  • Sinocontech LLC
  • AzTech Technologies
  • Integra Technologies
  • Wireclass
  • Andwill
  • Tellon Trading
  • Arecy
  • Masswell / Masswell Development Group
  • CG Max Design
  • Global IT Experts
  • Apex IT Systems Inc.
  • XCG Design
  • Smoothies Technology Inc.
  • New Beast
  • CloudParticle
  • Abroad Intellect Capital
  • Acuty
  • Dealfar
  • Abroad Intellect Capital
  • Prior Media

Legal Grounds Often Cited in I-485 NOIDs

When your case is challenged, USCIS usually cites:

  • INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i): Willful misrepresentation of a material fact – claiming that you misrepresented your employment or violated status.
  • INA 245(a)/INA 245(c)(2): Ineligibility to adjust status – arguing that you failed to maintain lawful nonimmigrant status due to unauthorized employment or fraudulent work.

These findings are serious, and without a strong response, your I-485 adjustment of status can be denied.

What Should You Do If You Receive an I-485 NOID for OPT Fraud?

If you’ve received an I-485 Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) based on OPT fraud or a scam employer, the worst thing you can do is ignore it or try to handle it alone. A NOID is not a final denial but it is your last chance to save your green card application. You usually have just 30 days to respond, and USCIS expects a detailed, well documented answer.

The first step is to review the allegations carefully to understand why USCIS believes your OPT employer was fraudulent. We have helped clients facing OPT-related NOIDs by building persuasive legal arguments and won their cases. With the right strategy, many applicants have been able to overcome these allegations and move forward to green card approval.

How We Help Clients Facing I-485 NOIDs for OPT Fraud

When USCIS issues an I-485 NOID for OPT fraud, it can feel like everything you’ve worked for is about to collapse. But with the right legal strategy, these cases can often be turned around. Our firm has successfully helped clients respond to NOIDs citing INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for misrepresentation and INA 245(a)/(c)(2) for failure to maintain status.

We start by conducting a deep review of your case history to identify exactly why USCIS flagged your OPT employer. Then we build a tailored response that demonstrates you acted in good faith and complied with the rules. We gather critical evidence that proves your employment was legitimate. At the same time, we prepare a legal brief that challenges USCIS’s assumptions and highlights why you remain eligible for adjustment of status.

Our goal is simple: to protect your green card application and prevent USCIS from punishing you for an employer’s misconduct. With our experience and proven strategies, we’ve helped many clients overcome OPT related NOIDs and secured their permanent residency.

Turn a H1B NOID Into a Green Card Approval With Our Help

Receiving an I-485 Notice of Intent to Deny due to OPT employer fraud is serious, but it doesn’t have to end your immigration journey. By responding quickly with strong evidence and legal arguments, you can often overcome these allegations and move forward toward green card approval.

If you’ve received an I-485 NOID citing INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) or INA 245(a)/(c)(2), contact us immediately at 305-515-0613 or email info@messersmithlaw.com. We’ll review your case, prepare a strong defense, and fight to protect your future in the US.

212(a)(6)(C)(i) Waiver

by

What Is Inadmissibility Under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)

Under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, an individual is inadmissible to the United States if they have been found to have committed fraud or willfully misrepresented a material fact in order to obtain a visa, entry, or any other immigration benefit. This ground of inadmissibility applies to those who have provided false information on visa applications, used fraudulent documents, or misrepresented their intent when entering the U.S.

A misrepresentation finding can have serious consequences, including:

  • Permanent inadmissibility to the United States
  • Denial of a visa, green card, or entry at the border
  • Ineligibility for most immigration benefits without an approved waiver

A waiver is available for certain individuals, allowing them to overcome the inadmissibility finding and continue with their immigration process.

Who Qualifies for a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Waiver

A waiver for fraud or misrepresentation is only available to:

  • Spouses, parents, sons, or daughters of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents
  • Individuals who can demonstrate that their U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relative would suffer extreme hardship if they are denied entry or status

The applicant must prove that their removal or continued inadmissibility would cause significant hardship to their qualifying relative, such as financial, medical, or emotional difficulties.

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

Case 1: Waiver approved for a misrepresentation on a visa application

A Mexican national was denied a green card after USCIS found that he had misrepresented his marital status on a past visitor visa application. Even though the mistake was unintentional, he was deemed inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for misrepresentation.

We filed an I-601 waiver, demonstrating that his U.S. citizen wife would suffer extreme hardship if he were not allowed to obtain legal status. The waiver was approved, and he was granted his green card.

Case 2: Overcoming a fraud charge for using false documents

A Central American immigrant had entered the U.S. years ago using a false passport. Later, he married a U.S. citizen and applied for a green card. At his adjustment of status interview, USCIS determined that he had committed fraud under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and denied his application.

We filed an I-601 waiver, arguing that his U.S. citizen wife would suffer extreme hardship due to her medical condition and financial dependence on him. After several months of advocacy, the waiver was approved, and he was granted permanent residency.

In Some Cases a Waiver is NOT Required!

Case 3: Challenging a misrepresentation finding at the consulate

A business owner from South America was denied a U.S. visa because the consulate accused him of providing false financial information on a prior application. He had unknowingly submitted incorrect tax documents prepared by an advisor, which led to a misrepresentation finding.

We prepared a detailed legal argument proving that he did not intentionally misrepresent his finances. After reviewing our evidence, the consulate overturned the misrepresentation finding, and he was issued a visa without needing the waiver.

Need a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Waiver? Contact Us Today

If you have been found inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) due to fraud or misrepresentation, you may still have options. A waiver may allow you to obtain a visa, green card, or reenter the U.S. legally, but these cases require strong legal arguments and supporting evidence.

Our law firm has successfully helped individuals fight misrepresentation findings, file waivers, and regain legal immigration status. Every case is unique, and we can help determine the best strategy for you.

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.

LCA Errors that can Lead to H1B Visa Refusals and INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Inadmissibility Determinations

by

Errors made by the visa applicant in regards to the Labor Condition Application (LCA) can cause significant problems and potentially jeopardize their chances of obtaining an H-1B visa. It’s crucial to avoid common mistakes that can lead to visa denials and inadmissibility determinations under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). Here are some frequent errors and their implications:

Misrepresenting the Terms of the Job Offer: Visa applicants must accurately represent the terms of the job offer in the LCA, including job duties, salary, and working conditions. Any misrepresentation can be considered fraud, leading to a visa denial. It’s essential to provide truthful and precise information to avoid accusations of misrepresentation.

Failing to Comply with the Prevailing Wage: The Department of Labor mandates that H-1B visa holders must be paid the prevailing wage for their job. If an applicant is paid less than the prevailing wage, it violates the LCA and can result in a visa denial. Ensuring compliance with wage requirements is critical to maintaining legal status.

Failing to Disclose Previous Immigration Violations: Visa applicants must disclose any previous immigration violations, such as overstays or unauthorized employment. Failing to disclose such violations can be considered fraud and result in a visa denial. Full transparency regarding immigration history is vital to avoid complications.

Failing to Comply with the Terms of the Visa: H-1B visa holders must adhere to the terms of their visa, including maintaining status, working only for the employer listed on the LCA, and not engaging in unauthorized employment. Non-compliance can lead to visa denial or revocation of visa status. Adhering strictly to visa terms helps ensure continued legal status in the U.S.

Failing to Notify the Department of Labor of Changes: Any changes to the job offer terms, such as job duties, salary, or working conditions, must be reported to the Department of Labor. Failure to report these changes can result in LCA violations and visa denial. Keeping the Department of Labor informed of any job-related changes is crucial.

If an H-1B visa applicant is accused of fraud under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), it’s imperative to take immediate action. Here are steps to potentially resolve the situation and overcome fraud accusations:

  1. Contact Us Immediately: Call us at 305-515-0613 or email us at info@messersmithlaw.com. Our experienced immigration attorney, with over 20 years of experience, can review your case and advise on the best course of action.
  2. Gather Evidence: We will help you gather evidence to refute the fraud allegations, ensuring you have a strong case.
  3. Cooperate with Authorities: We will guide you on how to cooperate fully with authorities, including attending interviews or providing additional documentation as requested.

If you have been accused of fraud or misrepresentation due to a misunderstanding involving your LCA, contact our office through our website or give us a call at 305-515-0613. We look forward to helping you win your case, as we have for thousands of other clients.

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.

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

by

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.

Proclamation 10043

by

Proclamation 10043 – Suspension of Entry as Nonimmigrants of Certain Students and Researchers From the People’s Republic of China

The entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant of any national of the PRC seeking to enter the United States pursuant to an F or J visa to study or conduct research in the United States, except for a student seeking to pursue undergraduate study, and who either receives funding from or who currently is employed by, studies at, or conducts research at or on behalf of, or has been employed by, studied at, or conducted research at or on behalf of, an entity in the PRC that implements or supports the PRC’s “military-civil fusion strategy” is hereby suspended.

Some applicants were refused visa or entry pursuant to Proclamation 10043 were also found to be inadmissible pursuant to INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i) Misrepresentation  or INA 212(a)(1)(a)(iii) Physical or Mental Disorder.

INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i) Misrepresentation

This provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits the admission of any alien who has misrepresented a material fact in order to obtain a visa or other immigration benefit. This includes individuals who have lied about their educational or employment history, their ties to the PRC, or their involvement in military-civil fusion activities.

INA 212(a)(1)(a)(iii) Physical or Mental Disorder

This provision of the INA prohibits the admission of any alien who is mentally or physically unable to care for themselves or who is likely to become a public charge. This includes individuals who have a history of mental illness, a physical disability that would prevent them from working, or a chronic medical condition that would require extensive medical care.

Resolutions to Refusals Due to Proclamation 10043

If you have been deemed inadmissible due to Proclamation 10043, 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.

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