INA 212(a)(9)(B)

How to overcome Section 212(a)(9)(B)

by

​If you’ve been told that you’re inadmissible under INA Section 212(a)(9)(B) due to unlawful presence, you’re likely worried about the possibility of a 3 year or 10 year bar from returning to the United States. These bars apply when someone overstays their authorized period of stay and then departs the US which triggers long term consequences that affect your ability to obtain a visa or green card. But these situations can often be challenged or waived, depending on your circumstances. If you’re in this position, don’t assume you’re out of options. Many of our clients have successfully overcome this problem with the right legal strategy.

Why These Bars Are More Common and Sometimes Wrong

The 3 year bar applies to individuals who were unlawfully present for more than 180 days but less than one year, while the 10 year bar applies to those who were unlawfully present for one year or more. These penalties are triggered once you leave the US, and they can derail visa applications and family-based immigration cases. Unfortunately, we’ve seen many situations where USCIS or CBP made a mistake, showing someone overstayed when, in fact, they left on time or had legal status. In those cases, we’ve helped clients track down records, identify CBP errors, and correct the government’s mistake, allowing them to avoid a bar entirely.

Even when the unlawful presence is accurate, there are still legal remedies available. We frequently assist clients in applying for the I-601A Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, which allows them to request forgiveness before leaving the country for a visa interview. These waivers are discretionary and are granted based on a showing that refusal of admission would cause extreme hardship to a qualifying US citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent. It’s important to understand that this waiver only covers unlawful presence, so if there are other issues such as prior fraud, criminal convictions, or removal orders, additional waivers may be required.

How We Help Clients Overcome Unlawful Presence Bars

Whether you’re facing an incorrect inadmissibility finding or need to build a strong waiver case, we know how to help. We’ve worked with clients who were wrongly barred due to database errors and successfully challenged those determinations. For those who did accrue unlawful presence, we’ve guided them through the I-601A process, helping them gather the right documentation to prove hardship and ultimately secure approval. We understand how to spot problems before they cause a denial, and we’re here to help you avoid painful delays or permanent bars.

Talk to an Immigration Lawyer Before You Take the Next Step

If you’re facing a 3 year or 10 year bar under INA 212(a)(9)(B), don’t guess your way through it. Let us help you fix it the right way. Whether you’re inside or outside the US, we’ll help you understand your options, correct any errors in your record, and apply for a waiver if needed. Call our office today at (305) 515-0613 or email info@messersmithlaw.com to schedule a consultation. We’ll review your immigration history, develop a strategy, and fight to get you back on the path to legal status in the United States.

Overcoming INA 212(a)(9)(B): Waivers and Challenging Unlawful Presence Bars

by

INA 212(a)(9)(B) imposes significant penalties on individuals who accrue unlawful presence in the United States and later seek admission. This provision establishes three and ten year bars for those who have been unlawfully present for more than 180 days or one year, respectively. While these bars can disrupt immigration plans, it is often possible to overcome them through waivers or by challenging the determination of unlawful presence.

For individuals facing a three or ten year bar under INA 212(a)(9)(B), waivers are available in certain circumstances. The most common waiver is for applicants who can demonstrate that their absence would cause extreme hardship to a qualifying relative, such as a US citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent. Evidence of hardship may include financial, medical, or emotional challenges that the qualifying relative would face due to the separation. Waiver applications must be supported by compelling documentation and require careful legal preparation to succeed.

It may also be possible to challenge the determination of unlawful presence or the application of the bar itself. For example, not all time spent in the US without status counts as unlawful presence under the law. Certain periods may be exempt, such as time spent as a minor or while a timely application for adjustment of status was pending. Additionally, errors in calculating unlawful presence or misinterpreting the applicant’s immigration history may provide grounds for challenging the determination.

Navigating the complexities of INA 212(a)(9)(B) requires a thorough understanding of the law and a strategic approach to presenting your case. Whether you are seeking a waiver or disputing the determination of unlawful presence, experienced legal guidance can make all the difference. Contact my office today to discuss your case and explore your options for overcoming this ground of inadmissibility. Together, we can work toward securing your immigration goals.

If you or someone you know is affected by this provision, contact my office today. You can reach us at 305-515-0613 or info@messersmithlaw.com. We are here to assist you.

Immigration Success Stories – INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and 212(a)(9)(B)

by

Any foreign national who has been unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days faces a three-year ban on reentry, and those unlawfully present for one year or more face a ten-year ban. However, there are exceptions and nuances in the law that can be leveraged to achieve successful outcomes.

For instance, any alien (other than one lawfully admitted for permanent residence) who has been unlawfully present in the United States for more than 180 days but less than one year, and then voluntarily departs and seeks reentry within three years, is considered inadmissible. Similarly, those unlawfully present for a year or more who seek reentry within ten years are also inadmissible. However, time spent under the age of 18, while a bona fide asylum application is pending, or under family unity protection does not count towards the unlawful presence period. Additionally, VAWA petitioners and victims of severe trafficking can also be exempt from these provisions.

We have successfully assisted many clients in overcoming Notices of Intent to Deny (NOID) due to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and INA 212(a)(9)(B). Here are a few notable success stories:

One of our clients, who had an approved I-140 through the EB1 category and was on an O1 visa, received an NOID. During his in-person interview, USCIS questioned him about his O1 visa application and issued an NOID citing INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for misrepresentation and INA 212(a)(9)(B) for unlawful presence. USCIS argued that his stay on the O1 visa was unlawful due to alleged misrepresentation upon his initial entry to the U.S. We meticulously pieced together all aspects of his case, demonstrating the validity of his claims and ultimately secured a successful outcome.

Another case involved a client sponsored by his U.S. citizen wife. Despite their approved I-130, the client received an NOID citing INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and INA 212(a)(9)(B) for alleged marriage fraud and overstay which related to his previous B2 visa application. Inconsistencies during the I-485 interview raised red flags, complicating their case. We presented a compelling legal argument and provided sufficient evidence to counter the allegations, leading to the approval of the I-485.

These cases highlight the importance of thorough preparation, strategic legal arguments, and a deep understanding of immigration law. If you are facing similar challenges, we are here to help. Please contact us at 305-515-0613 or info@messersmithlaw.com for expert assistance with your immigration needs.