Category Archives: INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)

Can You Get a U.S. Visa if You Have a Conviction for or Admit to a Drug Offense?

If you were convicted of or admit to committing a drug offense, this subjects you to a permanent bar from the United States. This means you will not be eligible to receive a U.S. visa or admission to the U.S. on crime-related and perhaps health-related grounds. There are, however, exceptions to the rule.

That said, is Prince Harry’s U.S. visa subject to revocation due to his public admission to illicit drug use? He does this in his memoir book Spare and in several media interviews. While this might be no big deal for the Duke of Sussex, such public admissions would typically carry high U.S. immigration risks.

In episode 14 of The Legal Immigrant, you will learn 4 tips to consider in dealing with the U.S. immigration consequences of a controlled substance violation:

1.Heritage Foundation sues DHS to obtain copy of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex’s U.S. immigration records

2. Possible visa options for Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

3. Tip #1 – Verify whether this is a conviction for or admission to committing the essential elements of a specific drug offense

  • Definition of a “conviction” for a drug offense under U.S. immigration law 6:09 Definition of an “admission” to a drug offense under U.S. immigration law
  • Definition of a “controlled substance” under U.S. federal law
  • Lying about a material fact on a visa application may lead to a finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation to obtain U.S. immigration benefits, which is a permanent bar under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)

4. Tip #2 – Consider the applicant’s age at the time of the drug offense

5. Tip #3 – Be aware of the separate, health-related inadmissibility bar related to drug use, under INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iv)

6. Tip #4 – Confirm eligibility for a waiver if you are found inadmissible due to a controlled substance violation or due to your being identified as a drug abuser or addict

  • Section 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver for nonimmigrants who are found inadmissible due to drug offenses or due to being identified as a current drug abuser or addict
  • Factors considered in 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver requests
  • Section 212(h) of the INA provides a waiver for immigrants who are found inadmissible for drug offenses in only one situation: that is, a single conviction or legal admission to committing one controlled substance offense that involves possession of marijuana, 30 grams or less
  • Eligibility requirements in Form I-601/INA 212(h) immigrant waiver requests 16:48 No immigrant waiver if you are if you are identified as a current drug abuser or addict and found inadmissible on health-related grounds under INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iv). You may, however, overcome this inadmissibility if the drug abuse or addiction is found to be in remission.

To listen, click HERE for Episode 14 on The Legal Immigrant podcast or find it on Apple Podcasts or Google Podcasts

To watch the YouTube video, click HERE.  To read the transcript, click HERE

The Legal Immigrant provides general information only from Dyan Williams Law. U.S. immigration laws, policies and regulations may change, following the publication of this content. Do not consider it as legal advice. Each case is different. Even cases that seem similar can have different outcomes. 

To receive guidance on the U.S. immigration consequences of a record of controlled substance offenses, you may submit an email to info@dyanwilliamslaw.com or online message at www.dyanwilliamslaw.com.

I-601 Waiver + Immigrant Visa = A True Success Story

Five years after being found inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), our client finally received her Immigrant Visa to join her U.S. citizen spouse in the United States. Consistent with normal processing time, USCIS took 10 months to approve her Form I-601 application for waiver of inadmissibility, which we prepared and filed on her behalf.

But due to the U.S. Consulate’s administrative delays and a Presidential Proclamation suspending entries from the client’s home country, it took almost three more years for her to get the visa.

In episode 13 of The Legal Immigrant, you will learn:

1) The U.S. immigration problem when you have a permanent bar under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), i.e., fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact to obtain a U.S. immigration benefit. 

2) The two main solutions to receive an Immigrant Visa or green card (permanent residence) when you have a section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) inadmissibility bar:

a) A motion to reconsider requires you to have a factual basis, legal ground, and procedural means to get the bar removed.

b) Form I-601 waiver application under INA 212(i) requires you to have a “qualifying relative” who will face “extreme hardship” if you do not immigrate to the United States. 

  • A qualifying relative is the U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent of the applicant. 
  • Extreme hardship must result to the qualifying relative if that person stays in the U.S. without the applicant or relocates to another country to be with the applicant. 

3) The type of documentary evidence and legal argument that are required to receive an I-601 waiver.  This includes medical records on any chronic medical conditions the U.S. citizen spouse (or other qualifying relative) suffers, and reports on lack of medical resources in the visa applicant’s home country. 

4) The outcome of a true success story, which included more obstacles and long delays after the I-601 was approved. Due to the U.S. Consulate’s 221(g) administrative processing and a 212(f) Presidential Proclamation suspending entries from certain countries, it took almost three more years for the applicant to get the Immigrant Visa.

The couple remained committed to one another despite their separate residences and long-distance relationship. Our client finally became a permanent resident after she was initially refused the visa under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

This is a true success story at Dyan Williams Law.

To hear more on the I-601 Waiver + Immigrant Visa success story, click HERE for Episode 13 on The Legal Immigrant podcast or find it on Apple Podcasts or Google Podcasts

To watch the YouTube video, click HERE.  

To read the transcript, click HERE

The Legal Immigrant provides general information only from Dyan Williams Law. Do not consider it as legal advice. Each case is different. Even cases that seem similar can have different outcomes. 

Have you been charged with fraud or misrepresentation? If you’re applying for an immigrant visa or permanent residence and have this lifetime bar, you need an I-601 waiver. Otherwise, if the bar was made in error, you might be able to get it removed through a motion to reconsider.

To receive advice on fraud or misrepresentation issues, you may submit an email to info@dyanwilliamslaw.com or online message at www.dyanwilliamslaw.com.

Dyan Williams, Esq. 

Founder & Principal Attorney
Dyan Williams Law PLLC
(612) 225-9900
info@dyanwilliamslaw.com
www.dyanwilliamslaw.com

U.S. Immigration Risks in Claiming F-1 OPT or H-1B Status When There is No Real Job

Are you an F-1 student or H-1B worker who claimed to work for a U.S company when there was no actual job?

Did the company issue W2s or pay stubs showing you were paid when you really were not?

If you seek to maintain F-1 OPT, F-1 STEM OPT or H-1B status through employment – when there is no real job – you run the risk of being found inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). This law states that you have a lifetime bar if you engage in fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact to obtain a U.S. immigration benefit.

Being inadmissible disqualifies you from getting a change or extension of status, a new visa, or lawful entry to the United States. While a 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver or I-601/INA 212(i) immigrant waiver might solve the issue, it doesn’t work in every case. It’s best to avoid a fraud/misrepresentation charge altogether.

Episode 11 of The Legal Immigrant podcast covers:

1) The different contexts in which U.S. Customs & Border Protection, USCIS and U.S. Embassies and Consulates can make the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge 

2) F-1 OPT and STEM OPT rules to follow

  • Time restrictions for submitting Form I-765, application for employment authorization
  • Unemployment grace period of 90 days for F-1 OPT and an additional 60 days for F-1 STEM OPT (i.e. total of 150 days during entire post-completion OPT period)
  • F-1 OPT and F-1 STEM OPT must involve at least 20 hours of work related to field of study
  • F-1 may include a paid job, a paid internship, an unpaid internship, volunteer work, contract work, agency work, or self-employment
  • F-1 STEM OPT must include paid employment with a company that is enrolled in the E-Verify program

3) Immigration fraud investigations and related problems

  • Many F-1 and H-1B visa holders, particularly from China, get their visas revoked or denied or are refused entry to the United States because they had listed Findream or Sinocontech to receive work authorization
  • F-1 and H-1B visa holders, most from India, face U.S. immigration and visa problems if they listed companies like Integra Technologies LLC, AZTech Technologies, Andwill, Wireclass or Tellon Trading to obtain OPT, STEM OPT or other work permit
  • Problems include refusal of entry to the US, visa denials, visa revocations, and denials of change/extension of status requests. In some cases, a 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge is made.

4) 3 key indicators that the petitioner or employer may be flagged 

  • Does the company require you to pay a training fee, including before it issues the job offer letter or Form I-983 training plan? 
  • Does the company fail to assign roles and responsibilities as stated in the job offer letter, Form I-983 for STEM OPT, or Form I-129 Petition for H-1B? 
  • Does the company offer employment verification, pay stubs and W2s when there was actually no real work or no pay received for an F-1 STEM OPT or H-1B position?

5) The longer you are associated with a flagged company, the more U.S. immigration risks and visa problems you will have

  • As soon as you find out there’s no real job, move on quickly. 
  • You might be tempted to use fake employment to maintain status or stop the accrual of unlawful presence. But you run the risk of not only falling out of status, but also being charged with a lifetime inadmissibility bar under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). 
  • US immigration agencies are less forgiving when it comes to a fraud or misrepresentation charge because it means you’ve been found to have lied to the U.S. government to gain an immigration benefit. 

Subscribe to The Legal Immigrant podcast at Apple Podcasts or other apps.

If you prefer to read, download transcript of episode 11.

For more information, see:

# # #

The Legal Immigrant podcast and this article provide general information only. It is based on law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for your situation. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

The Legal Immigrant Podcast: Episode 4 – Section 204(l) for Surviving Relatives

If the petitioner or principal beneficiary in an immigrant petition dies, may USCIS still approve the case? May the surviving beneficiaries still immigrate to the United States? In some cases, section 204(l) relief is the way.

Section 204(l) of the Immigration & Nationality Act allows certain beneficiaries (and derivative beneficiaries) to continue with an Immigrant Visa request or Adjustment to Permanent Residence application even after the Form I-130 petitioner (or principal beneficiary) has died.

Unlike the survivor benefits for widow(er)s of U.S. citizens, and unlike humanitarian reinstatement for principal beneficiaries of approved petitions, section 204(l) relief protects a broader category of persons if they show they resided in the United States at the time of the death, and they continue to reside in the United States.

Section 204(l) provides benefits not only when the U.S. citizen or permanent resident petitioner dies, but also, in some cases, when the principal beneficiary or principal applicant dies. It allows eligible derivative beneficiaries to continue with the green card process even if the principal beneficiary dies. Derivative beneficiaries are applicants who cannot be directly petitioned for, but may join the principal beneficiary of the petition based on a spousal or parent-minor child relationship.

In episode 4 of The Legal Immigrant podcast, I discuss who may be eligible for 204(l) benefits, the residence and admissibility requirements, the discretionary factors, and how to apply for the relief.

For more information, see:

Section 204(l) Allows Certain Surviving Relatives to Become Permanent Residents Even When Petitioner or Principal Beneficiary Has Died


Section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) Allows Certain Widows or Widowers of U.S. Citizens to Become Permanent Residents Even When the Citizen Has Died

Humanitarian Reinstatement Allows Certain Principal Beneficiaries to Become Permanent Residents Even When Petitioner Has Died

If you like the show, please go to Apple Podcasts, log into your ITunes account, and leave a 5-star rating and positive review. Or share and rate on another app. This extra step will help grow the show and help others find the information they need! 

Many thanks,

Dyan Williams

Founder & Principal Attorney
Dyan Williams Law PLLC
info@dyanwilliamslaw.com
www.dyanwilliamslaw.com

Removal of INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Bar + H-4 Visa Grant = A True Success Story

A U.S. Consulate granted the H-4 spouse visa to our client, after agreeing to remove the INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge against her. This permanent bar was made 10 years earlier, when she applied for an Immigrant Visa sponsored by her prior U.S. citizen spouse.

A 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver is the more common fix, but does not get rid of the bar. In this case, I advised the applicant to file a motion to reconsider and rescind the inadmissibility charge, instead of ask for a 212(d)(3) waiver with the visa. The facts and law did not support the Consulate’s finding that she used fraud or willfully misrepresented material facts to obtain a U.S. immigration benefit.

Problem: INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Charge is a Permanent Bar

In the CR1 Immigrant Visa refusal, the U.S. Consulate found that my client had willfully misrepresented a material fact in her prior request for a K-3 nonimmigrant visa. The K-3 allows the spouse of a U.S. citizen to enter the U.S. with temporary status and then apply for a green card through Form I-485 adjustment.

According to the Consulate, she had falsely claimed to be married to the U.S. citizen petitioner when she really was not. It reasoned that her Hindu marriage — at the time she applied for the K-3 visa — was not legally valid because their marital ceremony did not include the statutorily recognized rituals, Saptapadi and/or Agni Pheras.

The couple chose to leave out these rituals for personal reasons. They received a marriage certificate from the government authorities based on the ceremony that was performed. They did not expect the U.S. Consulate to question the validity of the marriage due to the missing ceremonial rituals.

At the K-3 visa interview, the consular officer instructed the applicant to complete a new marital ceremony with all the necessary Hindu marriage rituals. It issued a visa refusal notice stating the petition was invalid and would be returned to USCIS for revocation.

After following the Consulate’s instructions, the U.S. citizen filed a second I-130 petition to restart the process. The beneficiary later applied for the Immigrant Visa with the understanding that the new marriage met the Consulate’s requirements.

Instead of granting the CR1 visa, the U.S. Consulate denied it under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). The Consulate found the applicant had lied about her marital status in the K-3 visa request because she did not have a legal marriage to the petitioner at the time. She next filed a Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Inadmissibility with USCIS, as instructed by the Consulate.

A year later, the I-601 waiver request was denied. USCIS found there was insufficient evidence of extreme hardship to the U.S. citizen petitioner if the applicant did not immigrate to the United States. The separation led the marriage to fall apart and end in divorce.

Several years later, the applicant entered into a legal, bona fide marriage to an H-1B visa holder. The couple then contacted me for help in getting the H-4 visa at the U.S. Consulate.

I confirmed that section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) is a lifetime inadmissibility bar. The H-4 visa could be granted only if the U.S. Consulate agreed to remove the bar or the U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP), Admissibility Review Office (ARO) issued a 212(d)(3) waiver with the Consulate’s recommendation.

Solution: Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Bar in H-4 Visa Request

With my guidance, the couple decided to ask the U.S. Consulate to remove the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge and grant the H-4 visa, without requiring the 212(d)(3) waiver.

To support the Motion to Reconsider, I counseled the H-1B spouse and the H-4 applicant on the written testimonies and documentary evidence to present to the U.S. Consulate. I also prepared a legal memorandum explaining why the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar did not apply to this case.

At the visa interview, the applicant was questioned about the prior marriage that led to the inadmissibility bar. To show the consular officer that the bar was made in error, she presented the Motion to Reconsider, including my legal memorandum and her affidavit. The Consulate accepted her documents and placed the case in 221(g) administrative processing.

After receiving my follow-up inquiry, the Consulate scheduled the applicant for a second interview. This was three months after her first interview. She answered more questions on her marriage to the H-1B visa holder. She also submitted more evidence related to the marriage in response to a second 221(g) notice.

Six months after the first interview, the Consulate issued a notice stating the applicant was eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility. I then followed up with the Consulate requesting again they review the Motion to Reconsider and lift the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar.

After several more months of administrative processing and follow-up inquiries, the Consulate issued a notice stating a new waiver was in process because the prior waiver had expired.

At that point, I filed a request with the Visa Office, U.S. Department of State, asking it to counsel the U.S. Consulate to reconsider the inadmissibility charge, instead of require a 212(d)(3) waiver. The Visa Office contacted the Consulate and began to investigate my inquiry.

Outcome: Removal of Misrepresentation Bar and H-4 Visa Grant

A year after the applicant had attended her first H-4 visa interview, the U.S. Consulate agreed to remove the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar. The Visa Office sent me an email stating the Consulate would contact the applicant with further instructions on her H-4 visa request.

Despite the long wait, my client was happy to have the bar lifted and to receive her H-4 visa without needing a 212(d)(3) waiver. The visa was marked with a “clearance received” annotation. Because her spouse was already in the United States in H-1B status, she was excepted from Presidential Proclamation 10052, which placed COVID-19 travel restrictions on nonimmigrant visa applicants.

With the removal of the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge, my client will not a need a 212(d)(3) waiver to extend her H-4 status or to get a new nonimmigrant visa. She also will not require a Form I-601/INA 212(i) waiver to immigrate to the U.S. with her husband, who may apply for permanent residence through his U.S. employer.

The H-4 applicant, her H-1B spouse and I communicated by emails and telephone calls. I had one in-person meeting with the H-1B spouse for the initial consultation. With effective collaboration, we convinced the U.S. Consulate to remove the (6)(C)(i) bar — which was made a decade ago — and grant the H-4 visa. This is a true success story.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

Founder & Principal Attorney
Dyan Williams Law PLLC
(612) 225-9900
info@dyanwilliamslaw.com

###

This article provides general information only. It is based on law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for your situation. Each case is unique and even cases that seem similar may have different outcomes. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Intro & Outro Music by: Sebastian Brian Mehr