INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(II) | US Immigration Blog

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 Consequently, CBP rescinded the charges, and she regained her eligibility to enter the United States.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.

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.

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.
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.