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

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

Work Permit Fraud May Lead to Visa Revocation, Visa Denial and INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Inadmissibility

On June 26, Weiyun “Kelly” Huang, owner of the fictitious companies, Findream LLC and Sinocontech LLC, was sentenced to 37 months in federal prison for conspiracy to commit visa fraud. Her companies provided false employment verification records to foreign nationals seeking F-1 or H-1B visa status.

The U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) played a key role in the investigation, which created ripple effects on persons who received F-1 or H-1B work authorization by using a job offer letter, payroll records or other employment verification documents from Findream or Sinocontech.

F-1 and H-1B Work Authorization Requires Legitimate Employment

An F-1 visa allows an international student to study in the United States at a university or other academic institution.  F students may engage in practical training during their academic program or after it ends. Curricular Practical Training (CPT) and Optional Practical Training (OPT) are the two types of training that provide work experience related to the field of study.

Eligible students may apply for up to 12 months of OPT employment authorization before completing their academic studies (pre-completion) and/or after completing their academic studies (post-completion). All periods of pre-completion OPT, however, are deducted from the available period of post-completion OPT.

The OPT employment can be part time (at least 20 hours per week on post-completion OPT) or full time; involve multiple short-term employers, contract work, self-employment, or agency work; and be paid or unpaid (as a volunteer or intern, as long as labor laws are not violated). The student must report all employment to their Designated School Official (DSO) to maintain status.

While a job offer is not required to apply for OPT, the student may not have a cumulative total of 90 days of unemployment during the 12-month OPT period. Otherwise, they fall out of status and no longer qualify for a change or extension of status.

Students may apply for an additional 24 months of OPT if they have a degree and are employed in a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics) field. An additional 60 days of unemployment is allowed during the 24-month extension, which means the student may be unemployed for a total of 150 days (i.e. 90 + 60 days) during the entire OPT, 36-month period. Exceeding 60 days of unemployment during STEM OPT means the student is out of status and is ineligible for a change or extension of status.

For the 24-month STEM OPT extension, the DSO requires the student to have an existing job offer from a U.S. employer and to submit a completed Form I-983 (training plan) that is signed by the student and employer.

Section 3 to Section 6 on the Form I-983 requests information on the company, the agreed-upon practical training schedule and compensation, and the formal training plan, respectively. Unlike regular OPT employment, STEM OPT employment must be paid.

An H-1B visa allows U.S.-based employers to temporarily employ foreign nationals in specialty occupations. Foreign nationals with H-1B status may stay in the U.S. for three years, with the possibility of extending their stay for a total of six years. H-1B status may be extended beyond the six-year limit in certain situations, such as when 365 days or more have passed since the filing of an application for labor certification or immigrant petition (Form I-140) for the beneficiary.

F-1 students with a timely filed H-1B petition and change of status request, and whose F-1 employment authorization will expire before the change of status to H-1B occurs (typically October 1), may be eligible for a cap-gap extension in the United States. In many cases, the OPT employment or STEM OPT employment is what allows the F-1 student to change to H-1B status without departing for visa processing at the U.S. Consulate.

ICE Investigations of Work Permit Fraud Schemes Continue

ICE’s crackdown on F-1 and H-1B visa fraud schemes spell trouble for international students and foreign national workers who use fake job offers to obtain F-1 OPT, F-1 STEM OPT, F-1 CPT, or H-1B status.

ICE may conduct on-site visits to confirm the visa holder is actually working for the employer and performing the appropriate duties. When little-known companies like Findream and Sinocontech show a high number of F-1 OPT and STEM OPT workers, this can prompt further investigation.

In March 2019, the United States filed a criminal complaint against the owner of Findream, with an affidavit from an FBI Special Agent stating it was a company on paper only, with no actual physical presence, and was created for the purpose of providing false verifications of employment to F-1 visa holders seeking to extend their stay in the U.S. via the OPT program.

The indictment stated that Huang advertised Findream as a “startup company in technology services and consulting,” with clients in China and the U.S.  She used a China-based website, “Chinese Looking for Job,” and a China-based WeChat platform, “Job Hunters of North America,” to advertise Findream and Sinocontech to F-1 visa holders in the U.S. seeking employment and H-1B visas.

The companies did not deliver any technology or consulting services, or employ any of the individuals who responded to the ads, the indictment stated. In exchange for a fee, Huang and the companies provided job offer letters and employment verification letters as proof of employment, the charges alleged. Falsified payroll records and tax forms were also said to be provided.

According to the indictment, the fraud scheme allowed at least 2,685 customers to list Findream or Sinocontech as their employer to extend their F-1 status. Subsequently, many F-1 and H-1B visa holders, particularly from China, had their visas revoked or denied or were refused entry to the United States (following travel abroad) because they had listed Findream or Sinocontech to receive work authorization.

These types of ICE investigations are ongoing. Recent reports indicate that F-1 students, most from India, have received notifications from U.S. Consulates that their visas have been revoked because they used job offer letters from Integra Technologies LLC and AZTech Technologies LLC to obtain OPT, STEM OPT and, in some cases, CPT work permits.

Through consultations with applicants, we have learned that F-1 and H-1B visa holders, most from India and China, are being refused admission at the U.S. port of entry if they previously held work authorization by association with suspicious companies, such as Integra Technologies, AZTech Technologies, and Tellon Trading, Inc. Expedited removal orders and lifetime inadmissibility charges of fraud or misrepresentation are being made by CBP for this reason.

Data from ICE shows that Integra Technologies, AZTech Technologies, and Tellon Trading were 2nd, 6th, and 10th respectively, on the list of Top 200 Employers for OPT and STEM OPT Students, which includes well-known companies like Amazon, Intel, Google, Microsoft, Deloitte, Facebook and Apple. (NOTE: At least two other companies, Wireclass and Aandwill LLC, have been linked with Integra and AzTech.)

Fraud or Willful Misrepresentation of Material Fact to Obtain U.S. Immigration Benefits is a Permanent Inadmissibility Ground

Federal agencies including ICE and USCIS have made it a priority to deter and detect immigration fraud and have increased site visits, interviews, and investigations of petitioners who use the F-1 OPT and H-1B visa programs. One reason is to protect the “many American workers who are as qualified, willing, and deserving to work in these fields have been ignored or unfairly disadvantaged,” according to the agencies.

Submitting a bogus job offer letter, employment verification letter, payroll records or other documents to maintain or obtain F-1 or H-1B status creates the risk of a visa revocation or visa refusal. It may also lead to the denial of admission and an expedited removal order at the U.S. port of entry.

Whether the F-1 or H-1B visa holder knowingly pays a company for false employment verification is sometimes unclear. The pattern involves the company initiating contact with the beneficiary and requesting payment of a “training fee” at the outset. The job offer or training program might seem real in the beginning. But at some point, it becomes obvious there is no real job.

Persons who claim to have a legitimate job offer to gain an F-1 extension or H-1B status — when there is actually no job — are subject to being found permanently inadmissible. When you present false employment verification records to show you performed job duties and got paid for such duties (in order to receive a visa or lawful status in the United States) you risk being charged with a lifetime inadmissibility ban under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)(fraud or willful misrepresentation of material facts to gain U.S. immigration benefits).

In unique situations, the person may challenge a section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar by filing a formal motion to reconsider with the appropriate agency, such as CBP or the U.S. Consulate. In most cases, the person will need a 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver or Form I-601/INA 212(i) immigrant waiver.

The 212(d)(3) waiver has relatively flexible eligibility standards, which includes addressing the risk of harm to society if the person is admitted to the United States, the magnitude of the U.S. immigration violation that caused the inadmissibility, and the importance of seeking the visa. The Form I-601 waiver has stricter requirements because the person must have a qualifying relative (U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent) who will suffer extreme hardship if the person is not admitted to the United States.

If you are caught up in or benefited from an F-1 or H-1B visa fraud scheme, consult a qualified U.S. immigration attorney to discuss possible remedies. Ongoing and willful participation in the scheme might seem like a victimless offense, but it carries serious and permanent U.S. immigration consequences.

###

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 any individual case or situation. Each legal case is different and case examples do not constitute a prediction or guarantee of success or failure in any other case. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

U.S. Consulate Lifts INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Bar and Grants Immigrant Visa: A True Success Story

Within 21 days of receiving our Request for Supervisory Review of Immigrant Visa Refusal and Renewed Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Finding under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), the U.S. Consulate removed the lifetime bar and instructed our client to continue the immigrant visa process. Ultimately, he received his Immigrant Visa after the new police certificate and updated proof of his U.S. citizen petitioner’s U.S. domicile and financial support were provided. Because the U.S. Consulate agreed to lift the fraud charge, no Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Inadmissibility, was required.

Born stateless, the applicant used to hold a refugee travel document that contained a visitor visa when he was a child. After he acquired citizenship in a country where he was not born, the applicant used the new passport to obtain a second visitor visa and traveled to the United States for a temporary recreational stay.

Despite being married to a U.S. citizen, he complied with the terms of his visitor visa and did not overstay the authorized period or apply for a marriage-based green card within the United States. Based on the approved Form I-130 immigrant petition filed by his U.S. citizen wife, he sought to become a permanent resident through an Immigrant Visa application at the U.S. Consulate overseas.

At the initial Immigrant Visa interview, the applicant presented his passport for visa stamping. About two months later, the U.S. Consulate conducted a re-interview in which it asked about the process he used to acquire the citizenship and obtain the passport. He explained the legal channels he used to get both. Nonetheless, the U.S. Consulate charged him with section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)(fraud/willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain a U.S. immigration benefit), upon noting it was unable to verify his acquired citizenship or the authenticity of the passport when it contacted the government authorities.

The U.S. Consulate instructed him to file a Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Inadmissibility, to be excused from the inadmissibility charge. A section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding prohibits applicants from receiving an Immigrant Visa without first getting an I-601 approval from USCIS.

Two months after the visa refusal, the applicant contacted me for the first time to discuss his options. In our Skype (video) consultation, I explained that one solution was to file a Form I-601 application, as the U.S. Consulate instructed. To receive the waiver, he would need to prove the extreme hardships his U.S. citizen wife would suffer if he is denied entry to the United States as a permanent resident. I noted there is never any guarantee the waiver will be granted due to the high standard of proof and the discretion involved in the decision-making.

I further pointed out that if he did not commit fraud or willfully misrepresent material facts to gain the prior B1/B2 visitor visa, the Immigrant Visa, or any other U.S. immigration benefit, he could file a Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Finding with the U.S. Consulate. If such a motion is granted and the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar is lifted, the I-601 waiver is not required for the visa to be issued.

The client opted to go with the request to reconsider the inadmissibility charge. After we entered into a representation agreement, I counseled him on the information and documents he needed to present to show he did not engage in fraud or willfully misrepresent material facts to receive any U.S. immigration benefit.

To support the Motion to Reconsider, I prepared a legal memorandum describing how the applicant used proper channels to obtain the passport and why the submission of this passport to the U.S. Consulate was actually immaterial to his eligibility for the Immigrant Visa, as well as the prior visitor visas he received.

Five days after receiving the Motion to Reconsider, the U.S. Consulate issued a response stating the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar would remain and the applicant needed to file for an I-601 waiver. The Consulate noted the applicant had no concrete evidence to support his explanation on how he acquired the citizenship. The Consulate added that during its checks with the government authorities, it was determined beyond reasonable doubt the applicant misrepresented his case and deliberately provided false information and documents to receive an immigration benefit. They added he did not rescind his false statements when given the opportunity to do so.

In the Request for Supervisory Review and Renewed Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Finding, I stressed the important points the U.S. Consulate missed when it issued the response affirming the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge.

In reply to this Request and Renewed Motion, the U.S. Consulate sent a response 21 days later stating the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge had been lifted. Five months later — following the completion of administrative processing — my client received the Immigrant Visa to join his wife in the United States, without needing to file for and obtain an I-601 waiver.

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 any individual case or situation. Each case is different and case examples do not constitute a prediction or guarantee of success or failure in any other case. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Grant of Motion to Vacate INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) (Misrepresentation) Charge+ Issuance of Immigrant Visas = A True Success Story

The U.S. Consulate granted immigrant visas to the father and mother of an adult U.S. citizen after previously denying them — one year earlier — under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) willful misrepresentation of material facts to gain U.S. immigration benefits).

Upon receiving our two Motions to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Determination, the Consulate responded within 10 days, stating it reviewed our requests and removed the permanent bar under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) in both cases. The Consulate instructed our clients to appear for a second interview after submitting updated visa application forms and required documents. Approximately six weeks later, they attended their second interview and were granted their immigrant visas to enter the United States as permanent residents.

At the first interview, the Consulate denied the immigrant visas because the applicants had  overstayed their authorized periods in the United States as B1/B2 visitors for many years, but apparently did not disclose this when they applied for new visitor visas.

The section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar could not be excused with a Form I-601/INA 212(i) waiver of inadmissibility because they had no qualifying relative  (i.e. U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent) who would suffer extreme hardship if they were not admitted to the United States. A U.S. citizen son does not count as a qualifying relative for immigrant waiver purposes.

Before seeking the immigrant visas based on their U.S. citizen son’s immigrant petition, our clients were informed about the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar when they sought new B1/B2 visitor visas 10 years earlier. At that time, they did not challenge the inadmissibility finding and instead received 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waivers to be granted visitor visas.

The 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver, however, has less stringent eligibility requirements than the Form I-601/INA 212(i) waiver. By the time the clients retained me to represent them in challenging the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar, almost one year had passed since they attended their first immigrant visa interview.

U.S. federal regulations give them one year from the date of the immigrant visa refusal to file a Motion to Reconsider with new evidence or legal arguments. Responding quickly and effectively, I counseled the clients in preparing their declarations (written testimonies) and gathering documentary evidence showing their overstay occurred before April 1, 1997 and they departed the United States in May 1996.

In the Motion to Reconsider, I acknowledged the applicants might have stated “no” to the  question on whether they had violated the terms of a U.S. visa or been unlawfully present in the United States, when they should have said “yes.”

The father explained that he had used a professional broker service, paid for by his employer, to help fill out the visa application and that if a misrepresentation had occurred, it was not willful. The mother denied stating “no” to the overstay, but had no copies of the visa applications she had submitted.

In any event, I argued that to invoke the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar, the Consulate must not only find that willful misrepresentation occurred, but also that the information at issue was material to the applicant’s admissibility. I pointed out that both visa applicants departed the United States in May 1996 following their long overstay as visitors. The departure date was critical.

The U.S. Congress did not enact the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act until September 30, 1996, when the 3/10 year unlawful presence bar was introduced. Any unlawful presence that was accrued prior to April 1, 1997, when the law went into effect, does not count for purposes of the 3/10 year bar under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i).

Therefore, when the clients applied for new visitor visas in the early 2000’s, they had not accrued any unlawful presence that made them inadmissible to the United States or ineligible for a visitor visa under INA 212. If there was any failure to disclose an overstay on the visitor visa applications, it did not cut off a relevant line of inquiry regarding their admissibility or visa eligibility.

The clients were fortunate to have the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar lifted upon Motion to Reconsider, particularly because they had no qualifying relative for Form I-601/INA 212(i) purposes. While they could have continued to apply for B1/B2 visitor visas with 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waivers for temporary trips, their true desire was to live permanently in the United States with their U.S. citizen son. Having permanent resident status further allows them to file immigrant petitions for their two younger children (under age 21), who were born overseas and need to join them in the United States.

Upon receiving the good news that the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar had been removed, the applicants sent me a thank-you email stating, “We are so happy and thrilled and would not be celebrating today if it wasn’t for your talent and expertise. We will always be grateful to you for this outcome. Even in our best estimates, we could never expect a response in such a short time.”

Helping my clients obtain their immigrant visas within two months of filing the Motion to Reconsider and Rescind the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar 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 any individual case or situation. Each case is different and case examples do not constitute a prediction or guarantee of success or failure in any other case. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Photo by: Alexas_Fotos