{"id":1246,"date":"2024-09-10T22:09:53","date_gmt":"2024-09-11T04:09:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.messersmithlaw.com\/?p=1246"},"modified":"2026-02-13T23:01:24","modified_gmt":"2026-02-14T05:01:24","slug":"immigration-success-stories-ina-212a6ci-and-212a9b","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.messersmithlaw.com\/?p=1246","title":{"rendered":"Immigration Success Stories \u2013 INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and 212(a)(9)(B)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

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 our main reference page on INA 212a6Ci, check out our primary 212a6Ci page here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a> for expert assistance with your immigration needs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 our … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[108,343],"tags":[391,392],"class_list":["post-1246","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ina--212a6ci","category-ina--212a9b","tag-ina-212a6ci","tag-ina-212a9b"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t