Category Archives: The Legal Immigrant – Immigration Blog

Immigrant Visa Suspension for 75 Countries: Public Charge Concerns Cited as the Reason

Posted on January 16, 2026 | Comments Off on Immigrant Visa Suspension for 75 Countries: Public Charge Concerns Cited as the Reason

On January 14, the Trump Administration announced the suspension of Immigrant Visa processing for citizens of 75 countries.  The list includes:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan and Yemen.

This U.S. immigration policy takes effect on January 21. This is an indefinite pause with no set date for when it will end.

“The Trump administration is bringing an end to the abuse of America’s immigration system by those who would extract wealth from the American people,” the U.S. Department of State said. “Immigrant visa processing from these 75 countries will be paused while the State Department reassess immigration processing procedures to prevent the entry of foreign nationals who would take welfare and public benefits.”

What are the Exceptions?

There is an exception for dual nationals who apply with a valid passport from a country not included in the suspension.

In addition, the suspension does not restrict applicants seeking non-immigrant visas, such as B1/B2 temporary tourist or business visas, who make up the larger percentage of visa applicants. Demand for non-immigrant visas is expected to rise for the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics, which the U.S. will host or co-host.

What are the Effects on U.S. Immigration?

U.S. Consulates will not issue Immigrant Visas to applicants who are from any of the 75 countries, even if they are otherwise eligible for the visa. Although they may submit their forms and documents to the DOS, their applications will not be granted while the suspension is in effect.

During the pause, the legal paths to U.S. immigration and permanent residence will be tightened. After the suspension is lifted, applicants will still have to meet long-existing eligibility requirements.

How Does This Policy Support the Trump Administration’s U.S. Immigration Stance? 

The Trump Administration has already restricted immigrant and non-immigrant visa processing for citizens of dozens of countries, many of them in Africa, Asia and Latin America. In June 2025, it imposed U.S. travel restrictions on citizens from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

The suspension is based on a November guidance directed to U.S. Embassy and Consulate officials to comprehensively and thoroughly vet visa applicants to demonstrate that they will not need to rely on public benefits from the U.S. government any time after they are admitted to the United States.

What U.S. Immigration Law Creates Public Charge Requirements?

Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits applicants from receiving an immigrant visa or adjusting to permanent residence if they are likely, at any time, to become a public charge. To show they are not inadmissible on this ground, a Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, filed on their behalf is required in most family-based and some employment-based immigrant visa or adjustment cases.

In his first term, Trump and his Administration introduced a new Final Rule on August 14, 2019, which amended how U.S. immigration agencies applied section 212(a)(4). The 2019 Rule gave USCIS more discretionary power to deny Form I-485 green card requests and Form I-129 and Form I-539 applications to change status or extend status, on the public charge ground. The rule was set to take effect on October 15, 2019, i.e. 60 days after its publication. But federal court litigation delayed the implementation of the rule to February 24, 2020.

Then on March 9, 2021, the Public Charge rule under the prior Trump Administration was vacated and removed. USCIS and the U.S. Department of State returned to the old 1999 rule to determine whether a person is likely to become a public charge on the U.S. government.

The August 8, 2024 (08-28-2024) update in the DOS’ Foreign Affairs Manual instructs officers to consider the “Totality of Circumstances” to determine whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge. They are to consider, at a minimum, the applicant’s:

(a) Age;

(b) Health;

(c) Family status;

(d) Assets, resources, and financial status; and;

(e)  Education or skills.

A properly filed, non-fraudulent Form I-864 in cases where it is required, is normally enough to meet the INA 212(a)(4) requirements and satisfy the “totality of the circumstances” test. But the factors cited above could be relevant in usual cases in which a Form I-864 has been submitted and should also be considered in cases where a Form I-864 is not required.

The public charge rule is forward looking, so officers are instructed to focus on the applicant’s present circumstances at the time of the visa application.  A visa may not be refused based on speculation about financial issues that may occur in the future, such as a loss of job or medical emergency.

Past or current receipt of cash benefits for income maintenance by a family member of the visa applicant may be factored in only when such benefits also constitute(d) the primary means of subsistence of the applicant.

It’s not clear whether or how exactly the State Department will modify instructions relating to INA 212(a)(4) inadmissibility.

For more information, see:

Form I-864: Key to Meeting the Financial Requirements for Permanent Residence and Avoiding a Public Charge Determination

Form I-864: Alternatives to Meeting the Financial Requirement for Permanent Residence and Avoiding a Public Charge Determination

2019 Public Charge Rule Gets Tossed; 1999 Rule is Back

Immigrant Visa Process: Delays and Setbacks

# # #

The Legal Immigrant provides general information and is for educational purposes only. It is based on U.S. immigration 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

Comments Off on Immigrant Visa Suspension for 75 Countries: Public Charge Concerns Cited as the Reason

Posted in adjustment of status, green card, green card, immigrant petition, immigrant visa, nonimmigrant visa, public charge, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog

Tagged

Rescission of INA 204(c) Charge + Removal of INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Bar in K-1 Visa Case= A True Success Story

Posted on December 13, 2025 | Comments Off on Rescission of INA 204(c) Charge + Removal of INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Bar in K-1 Visa Case= A True Success Story

USCIS approved the Form I-129F, K-1 fiancé petition of our U.S. citizen client, after issuing a Notice of Intent to Deny it under INA 204(c). In the NOID, USCIS claimed her foreign national fiancé entered a prior sham marriage to a Form I-485 green card applicant solely to gain permanent residence as a derivative beneficiary.

After receiving our Response to the NOID, USCIS vacated the 204(c) charge and approved the petition. Still, the U.S. Consulate refused the K-1 visa under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and instructed the applicant to file for an I-601 waiver. Ten days after receiving our Motion to Reconsider the Inadmissibility Finding, the U.S. Consulate rescinded the (6)(C) refusal and then granted the visa.

USCIS Charges Beneficiary with INA 204(c)/Marriage Fraud Bar in Form I-129F Petition

Section 204(c) of the Immigration & Nationality Act prohibits USCIS from approving a visa petition (e.g. Form I-129F or I-130) if the beneficiary entered or conspired to enter a marriage for the purpose of evading U.S. immigration laws. If there is substantial and probative evidence of such an attempt or conspiracy in the beneficiary’s file – regardless of whether the benefit was received – USCIS will deny the petition under 204(c).

In its Notice of Intent to Deny the Form I-129F petition, USCIS claimed it was apparent the beneficiary entered a prior sham marriage to a Form I-485 green card applicant for the sole purpose of circumventing U.S. immigration laws. It determined that it was prohibited from approving the petition under 204(c).

The NOID marked the first opportunity to respond to the allegations of a prior sham marriage. In its earlier Request for Evidence (RFE), USCIS had asked only for proof of a real relationship and engagement between the couple. There was no mention of the 204(c) bar. The petitioner responded to the RFE on her own and then USCIS took several months to issue the NOID on section 204(c) grounds.

USCIS Vacates INA 204(c) Charge and Approves Form I-129F Petition Based on NOID Response

The petitioner and beneficiary contacted Dyan Williams Law for representation in addressing the NOID. Within 30 days, I filed a timely and persuasive Response to the NOID, which contained credible testimonies, objective evidence and legal argument establishing the beneficiary and his prior spouse entered a good-faith marriage, but it ended due to unresolved differences.

Eight months later, USCIS issued a Form I-797, Approval Notice for the I-129F petition. They agreed there was no substantial and probative evidence to sustain the 204(c) finding. The parties then consulted with Dyan Williams Law to complete the K-1 visa application at the U.S. Consulate.

U.S. Consulate Issues K-1 Visa Refusal Notice under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)

Because the 204(c) charge was vacated, we expected the visa interview to go well. But at the end of the interview, the U.S. Consulate issued a K-1 visa refusal notice citing to “6C1.” The consular officer merely stated it was based on the prior marriage, even though USCIS had already resolved this issue in the applicant’s favor.

To find that an applicant is inadmissible or ineligible for a visa under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), the consular officer must find all the following elements are met:

  • The applicant made a false representation;
  • The false representation was willfully made;
  • The fact misrepresented is material;
  • The false representation was made to a U.S. government official, such as a consular officer; and
  • The applicant, by using fraud or misrepresentation, seeks to procure, sought to procure, or procured, a benefit under U.S. immigration laws, such as a visa or admission to the United States.

U.S. Consulate Rescinds INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Inadmissibility Finding and Grants K-1 Fiancé Visa Based on Motion to Reconsider

The petitioner and beneficiary contacted Dyan Williams Law for representation in overcoming the (6)(C)(i) inadmissibility finding. We discussed the option of filing a Form I-601 waiver of inadmissibility with USCIS. This would involve a long processing time and the high evidentiary burden of proving the petitioner would face “extreme hardship” if the beneficiary was denied admission to the United States.

Ultimately, with counsel’s recommendation, they pursued another option: a Motion to Reconsider and Rescind the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Inadmissibility Finding with the U.S. Consulate.

We took several months to gather the necessary documentary evidence and written testimonies, including a declaration from the prior spouse confirming her marriage to the beneficiary was bona fide. In the legal argument, I also pointed out the applicant had never used fraud or willful misrepresentation of material facts in any request for U.S. immigration benefits. I also noted the (6)(C)(i) finding conflicted with USCIS’ approval of the Form I-129F petition, after it dropped the 204(c) charge.

USCIS’ approval of the petition did not necessarily mean the elements of fraud or willful misrepresentation were not met, but only that it lacked substantial and probative evidence of a prior sham marriage. Thankfully, it did not take long for the U.S. Consulate to make a positive decision.

Ten days after receiving the Motion to Reconsider, the U.S. Consulate sent an email notice stating it removed the (6)(C)(i) bar and provided further instructions for the K-1 visa process. The applicant completed the next steps and, three months later, received the visa for lawful admission to the U.S. in K-1 status.

USCIS Approves Form I-485 Application for Permanent Residence

Within 90 days of the K-1 visa holder’s arrival in the United States, he and his U.S. citizen fiancée married and began their life together. They then contacted Dyan Williams Law to represent them in the Form I-485 green card application.

Less than three months after USCIS received the Form I-485 application, they appeared for their scheduled Adjustment of Status interview before USCIS. The application was readily approved on the spot, with no doubts from USCIS regarding the beneficiary’s prior marriage or his existing marriage to the petitioner. The USCIS officer said they had great documentary evidence for an approval and did not ask about the NOID, the (6)(C)(i) visa refusal notice, or their relationship.

USCIS granted a two-year conditional green card because the marriage was less than two years old at the time it approved the Form I-485 application. The beneficiary will need to file a Form I-751 petition to remove the condition on his residence and to keep his U.S. immigration status. He may also file for naturalization (U.S. citizenship) when he meets the continuous residence requirement and other eligibility criteria.

It took 6 years for the applicant to receive his permanent residence from the time the Form I-129F petition was filed with USCIS. This long and complicated U.S. immigration journey is a true success story for the clients and Dyan Williams Law.

# # #
The Legal Immigrant provides general information only from Dyan Williams Law. It is based on U.S. immigration laws, regulations and policies that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Comments Off on Rescission of INA 204(c) Charge + Removal of INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Bar in K-1 Visa Case= A True Success Story

Posted in adjustment of status, bona fide marriage, green card, I-751, INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), K-1 visa, marriage fraud, success story, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog, waiver, willful misrepresentation

Tagged , ,

Trump’s $100,000 Fee in New H-1B Petitions: What We Know (So Far)

Posted on September 22, 2025 | Comments Off on Trump’s $100,000 Fee in New H-1B Petitions: What We Know (So Far)

On September 19, President Trump signed a Proclamation restricting the entry of certain H-1B workers into the United States, unless the Form I-129 (H-1B) petition was accompanied by a $100,000 fee from the employer. The restriction is effective as of September 21, and will expire in 12 months, absent an extension from the Trump Administration.

Tech giants like Microsoft, Amazon and JPMorgan immediately advised their H-1B workers to remain in the U.S. until further guidelines are provided by the Administration. But the impact of the Proclamation, titled Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, is not as dire as many news media reports and social media posts initially reported.

This major shift in H-1B policy adds a $100,000 payment to the existing filing fees and attorney fees related to Form I-129 petitions. Whether it will encourage U.S. employers to hire U.S. workers or relocate jobs to offshore workforces is uncertain.

To reduce panic, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X on September 20, “This is NOT an annual, fee, but a one-time fee that applies only to the petition.” She added, “Those who already hold H-1B visas and are currently outside of the country right now will NOT be charged $100,000 to re-enter.” She further wrote, “This applies only to new visas, not renewals, and not current visa holders.”

The White House has since clarified that the fee is required for new H-1B petitions submitted after 12:01 a.m. ET Sunday, September 20, not just those in the 2026 H-1B annual lottery.

A USCIS Memorandum, dated September 20, 2025, confirms the Proclamation applies prospectively to new H-1B petitions filed on September 21 or later, including future H-1B cap petitions or petitions requesting consular processing.

The Memorandum clarifies that it does NOT apply to applicants who:

1. are the beneficiaries of pending H-1B petitions that were filed prior to September 21, 2025;

2. are the beneficiaries of currently approved H-1B petitions; or

3. already have valid, unexpired H-1B visas.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued guidance stating the Presidential Proclamation does not restrict the entry of current H-1B visa holders. H-1B employees with valid Form I-797 Approval Notices and H-1B visas may travel as normal and will not be subject to the fee requirement to re-enter the United States.

What Are the Requirements and Effects of the Proclamation?

The Proclamation states in Section 1:

“(a)  Pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), the entry into the United States of aliens as nonimmigrants to perform services in a specialty occupation under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), is restricted, except for those aliens whose petitions are accompanied or supplemented by a payment of $100,000 — subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (c) of this section. This restriction shall expire, absent extension, 12 months after the effective date of this proclamation, which shall be 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on September 21, 2025. 

 (b)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall restrict decisions on petitions not accompanied by a $100,000 payment for H-1B specialty occupation workers under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA, who are currently outside the United States, for 12 months following the effective date of this proclamation as set forth in subsection (a) of this section.  The Secretary of State shall also issue guidance, as necessary and to the extent permitted by law, to prevent misuse of B visas by alien beneficiaries of approved H-1B petitions that have an employment start date beginning prior to October 1, 2026.

(c)  The restriction imposed pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply to any individual alien, all aliens working for a company, or all aliens working in an industry, if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines, in the Secretary’s discretion, that the hiring of such aliens to be employed as H-1B specialty occupation workers is in the national interest and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.”

In short, the Proclamation:

(1) Restricts entry of H-1B nonimmigrants to the U.S. unless the H-1B (Form I-129) petition to USCIS is accompanied by a $100,000 payment.

(2) Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to restrict approvals of petitions for H-1B workers who are currently outside the United States, if the petition is not accompanied by the $100,000 payment.

(3) Allows case-by-case exemptions if the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Secretary’s discretion, determines the hiring of the H-1B worker is in the national interest and will not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.

The Proclamation further requires the following:

(a) The employers shall, prior to filing an H-1B petition for a worker outside the United States, obtain and retain documentation showing the $100,000 payment was made.

(b) The Secretary of State shall verify receipt of payment during the H-1B petition process and shall approve only those petitions for which the employer has made the payment.

(c) The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of States shall deny entry to any H-1B nonimmigrant for whom the employer has not made the payment and take all other necessary and appropriate action to implement the proclamation.

(d) No later than 30 days following the completion of the H-1B lottery that occurs after the proclamation, the Department of State, the Department of Labor, the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall make a recommendation on whether to extend the restriction in the interests of the United States.

(e) The Secretary of Labor shall initiate rulemaking to revise the prevailing wage levels for the H-1B program.

(f) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall initiate rulemaking to prioritize high-skilled and high-paid H-1B workers.

Why Did the Trump Administration Impose the $100,000 Fee?

The Administration says the H-1B program was created to bring temporary workers into the United States to perform additive, high-skilled functions, but it has been used to replace, rather than supplement, American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor.  They note the H-1B program largely displaces U.S. workers and suppresses wages because foreign nationals are more willing to work for lower pay.

The Proclamation states that information technology (IT) firms, in particular, have abused the H-1B program, which significantly harms American workers in computer-related fields. On average, the share of IT workers in the H-1B program grew from 32% in fiscal year 2003 to an average of over 65% in the last 5 fiscal years.

The Proclamation also notes that abuse of the H-1 B program is a national security threat. H-1B reliant outsourcing companies have been found to engage in visa fraud, conspiracy to launder money, conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and other illegal activities to recruit foreign workers to the U.S.

H-1B workers must have at least a bachelor’s degree in the relevant field of study to fill a position in a specialty occupation requiring certain knowledge, skills and educational credentials. But the H-1B employer is not required to recruit U.S. workers, unless it is found to be H-1B dependent or a previous willful violator of H-1B requirements.

According to the White House, the restrictions will curb abuse of the H-1B program while allowing employers to hire the best of the best H-1B workers. It is not clear how the change will be implemented or whether it will be subject to legal challenge in federal courts. In the meantime, employers and foreign national workers may consider other visa options, such as the O-1 (Individuals with Extraordinary Ability or Achievement), L-1 (Intracompany Transferee) or TN (Canadian and Mexican citizens in specific professional occupations).

# # #
The Legal Immigrant provides general information only from Dyan Williams Law. It is based on U.S. immigration laws, regulations and policies that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Comments Off on Trump’s $100,000 Fee in New H-1B Petitions: What We Know (So Far)

Posted in H-1B, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog

Tagged , , ,

CBP Vacates Expedited Removal Order + Rescinds INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Charge = A True Success Story

Posted on February 6, 2025 | Comments Off on CBP Vacates Expedited Removal Order + Rescinds INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Charge = A True Success Story

Within 5 months, the U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) in San Francisco, CA vacated its Expedited Removal Order (ERO) and INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) inadmissibility finding against my client, upon receiving our Motion to Reconsider.

The CBP agreed he should not have been charged as inadmissible under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (intended immigrant without proper immigrant visa) and barred for 5 years from the United States, pursuant to INA 212(a)(9)(A)(i).

We also convinced the CBP that the permanent bar under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) was made in error. The legal argument and documentary evidence showed he did not use fraud or willfully misrepresent any material fact to obtain H-1B status.

Refusal of H-1B Admission to the United States Despite the Presentation of Valid Travel Documents and No Prior Violation of Nonimmigrant Status

At the U.S. port of entry, my client presented his valid Canadian passport and Form I-797, Approval Notice for H-1B petition, when he requested admission in H-1B status. He was, however, placed in secondary inspection for further questioning. Upon determining the true purpose of his request for admission was unclear, the CBP issued the Expedited Removal Order under (7)(A)(i) and included the additional inadmissibility ground, (6)(C)(i). The CBP did not give him the option of withdrawing his application for admission to the United States.

The Record of Sworn Statement indicated my client had good-faith intent to resume his employment at the H-1B petitioner, even though he had quit his position prior to departing the U.S. The Form I-797A, Approval Notice for the H-1B petition was still valid and was not withdrawn by the petitioner or revoked by USCIS.

Facts and Arguments Supporting Reconsideration of Inadmissibility Findings

Although my client took an extended break from his H-1B employment, he deemed it to be a “mutual separation” at most. It was, after all, the employer’s suggestion that he take a break when he declined to attend the company retreat due to health issues and personal reasons. He truly believed the company was open to having him resume his H-1B position.

While he was overseas, the employer was not required to pay him a salary and he was not obligated to do any work to maintain his H-1B status or avoid getting the H-1B status revoked. He did not consider his departure to be a final termination of employment or a paid leave of absence, and the employer did not indicate to him that it was.

Even if he had terminated his employment, through voluntarily resignation, he did not violate his H-1B status or accrue any unlawful presence to be prohibited from re-entering the U.S. He was not subject to the 3/10- year bar to reentry under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i).

The federal regulations at 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2) allow a discretionary grace period. H-1B workers may be considered as having maintained status following the termination of employment for up to 60 consecutive calendar days or until the end of the authorized validity period, whichever is shorter.

During the 60-day grace period, the H-1B worker may find a new employer to file an H-1B extension of stay and change of employer request with USCIS. Otherwise, he may leave the United States within that period to avoid a violation of status. My client departed the United States well before the end of the grace period and spent his extended break in his native country.

At the time of his departure, my client and his manager discussed the possibility of his returning to his H-1B position after he recovered from his burnout. A month before he traveled back to the U.S., he had a check-in call with his manager, which made him reasonably believe he could resume his position.

In the Motion to Reconsider, I pointed out that a terminated employee with no option of returning to his employment or of being rehired would not have such a check-in discussion with an employer. The petitioner gave him no confirmation of a final termination of employment and no notice that he must not use the H-1B Approval to request admission to resume his position.  

When he requested H-1B admission at the U.S. port of entry, my client fully intended to continue discussions with his manager to restart his position. If he really had no plans to return to his employment, he had a Canadian passport to request entry as a B1/B2 visitor to wrap up his personal affairs and continue business discussions with his manager.

An applicant may receive B-1 status if he is coming to the United States to engage in commercial transactions, negotiate contracts, consult with business associates, and participate in business meetings or conferences. My client could have legitimately requested admission as a visitor if his sole purpose was to engage in recreational activities or to have further employment negotiations or business meetings with his manager and then timely depart the United States to seek readmission in H-1B status.

He, however, chose to request H-1B admission because he fully intended to return to the employer. He assumed they were open to having him rejoin the company.

In the initial consultation, I explained that he had two options:

1. File a Motion to Reconsider the Expedited Removal Order and INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Bar with the CBP. A fully positive outcome in this requested relief gets rid of both the 5-year bar due to the Expedited Removal Order and the permanent bar under (6)(C)(i).

The drawback is that such motions are not routinely filed with CBP and are rarely granted, except in circumstances where the decision was clearly in error.

It is also better to submit the motion within 30 days of the expedited removal order, which is not a statutory requirement, but in accordance with a regulation generally related to motions with an immigration officer. A favorable review on the merits, if any, is completely within the discretion of the agency.

2. File a Request for Consent to Reapply for Admission Following Expedited Removal Order and an Application for 212(d)(3) Nonimmigrant Waiver for the (6)(C)(i) inadmissibility finding. This is the more common remedy and official procedure under U.S. immigration law. If granted, the applicant may then receive the U.S. visa or admission to the U.S. as a nonimmigrant, if he is otherwise eligible for such entry.

The drawback is that a CTR and 212(d)(3) waiver grant eventually expire and may last for only a few months to one year. The applicant may need to reapply for this relief if he travels overseas and seek readmission following the expiration of the CTR and waiver grant.

In addition, if the person needs a visa stamp for the purpose of his trip to the U.S., he must go through the U.S. Consulate or Embassy to request the CTR and 212(d)(3) waiver in connection with the visa application. This creates an extra hurdle because the U.S. Consulate or Embassy must first recommend the waiver for it to be forwarded to the U.S. Customs & Border Protection, Admissibility Review Office (ARO) for adjudication. If there is no recommendation, there is no review by CBP-ARO on the merits of the applications.

Canadian citizens may file for the Consent to Reapply for Admission (by a Form I-212 application) and 212(d)(3) waiver (by a Form I-192 application) directly with the CBP-ARO when they do not need a visa stamp in their passport for the purpose of their U.S. entry. But in situations where they must have a valid visa for U.S. entry, they must request the waiver through consular processing. Canadians need a visa stamp when they are:

  • Treaty traders and investors (E Visa).
  • Foreign citizen fiancé(e) (K-1 Visa), and the fiancé(e)’s children (K-2 Visa).
  • A U.S. citizen’s foreign citizen spouse traveling to reside in the U.S. while awaiting final completion of the process of immigration (K-3 Visa), and the spouse’s children (K-4 Visa).
  • Spouses of lawful permanent residents (V-1 Visas), and the spouse’s children who are traveling to reside in the U.S. while awaiting final completion of the process of immigration (V-2 Visas).
  • Non-immigrants traveling to the United States for work (Non-Immigrant Visas), including:
    • Canadian government officials (A Visas), if entering the U.S. for temporary or permanent assignment.
    • Officials and employees of international organizations (G Visas), if entering the U.S. for temporary or permanent assignment; and
    • NATO officials, representatives, and employees, only if they are being assigned to the U.S. (as opposed to an official trip).

Motion to Reconsider with CBP Results in Favorable Decision Within 5 Months

As a Canadian citizen, my client could have applied directly with CBP-ARO for the Consent to Reapply for Admission and 212(d)(3) waiver to seek re-entry in H-1B status or B1/B2 visitor status. But he opted for the Motion to Reconsider because the evidence showed the Expedited Removal Order and INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) findings were made in plain error. 

The normal processing time for a Motion to Vacate Expedited Removal Order with CBP is at least 6 months and, in some cases, may take 1 year or more. Because such motions are not the common or official procedure under statutory law, no Acknowledgement Notice or Receipt Notice is provided by CBP. A review by CBP is completely within their discretion.

While processing times are similar for Consent to Reapply for Admission and 212(d)(3) waiver applications, status updates may be requested from the U.S. Consulate or Embassy. This is also the formal path that U.S. immigration agencies expect applicants to take when they have INA 212(a)(9)(A) and (6)(C) bars.

In this case, the CBP agreed to vacate the Expedited Removal Order and the willful misrepresentation charge, as well as correct the record with a retroactive grant of withdrawal of application for admission. This timely and wholly positive outcome is a true success story for the client and Dyan Williams Law PLLC.

# # #
The Legal Immigrant provides general information and is for educational purposes only. It is based on U.S. immigration laws, regulations and policies that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Comments Off on CBP Vacates Expedited Removal Order + Rescinds INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Charge = A True Success Story

Posted in expedited removal, H-1B, immigration fraud, INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), nonimmigrant visa, success story, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog, waiver, willful misrepresentation

Tagged , , , ,

USCIS Drops COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement for Green Card (Form I-485, Adjustment of Status) Applicants

Posted on January 28, 2025 | Comments Off on USCIS Drops COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement for Green Card (Form I-485, Adjustment of Status) Applicants

As of January 22, 2025, USCIS is waiving any and all COVID-19 vaccination requirements for eligible applicants seeking adjustment to permanent residence within the United States. Therefore, Form I-485 (green card) applicants are no longer required to present documentation on their Form I-693, Report of Immigration Medical Examination and Vaccination Record, that they received the COVID-19 vaccination.

The USCIS notice states, “USCIS will not issue any Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny related to proving a COVID-19 vaccination. USCIS will not deny any adjustment of status application based on the applicant’s failure to present documentation that they received the COVID-19 vaccination.”

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii), green card and Immigrant Visa applicants are inadmissible and ineligible for permanent residence if they fail to show proof that they were vaccinated against communicable diseases of public health significance, which are vaccine-preventable. The list has long included:

  • Mumps
  • Measles;
  • Rubella;
  • Polio;
  • Tetanus and Diphtheria Toxoids;
  • Pertussis;
  • Haemophilus influenzae type B;
  • Hepatitis B

USCIS adds that it considers other vaccine-preventable diseases recommended by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP).The ACIP is an advisory committee to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that recommends immunizations for the general U.S. population.

Since December 2009, CDC has assessed whether vaccines recommended for the general U.S. population should be required for immigration purposes on a regular and on an as-needed basis according to specific criteria set by CDC.

CDC is responsible for publishing the Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons who conduct immigration medical examinations. Along with the HHS regulations, they instruct civil surgeons on how to conduct the vaccination assessment. The civil surgeon records the results of the immigration medical examination, including vaccination assessment, on USCIS’ Form I-693, which is included with the Form I-485 application for permanent residence.

In October 2021, the former Biden Administration implemented the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for green card and Immigrant Visa applicants based on CDC’s finding that COVID-19 was vaccine-preventable. In its October 2023 article, titled, 5 Things You Should Know about COVID-19 Vaccines, the CDC stated, “We have multiple years of experience showing the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. However, the strains of virus causing most of the disease change and immunity wanes over time. The changes from last year’s vaccines are small, but they help make the vaccine better at targeting the virus strains circulating now and give your immune system a boost.”

The CDC added, “When considering vaccine effectiveness studies, it is critical to evaluate the totality of evidence across many studies which shows that:

  • COVID-19 vaccines provide sustained protection against severe disease and death, the purpose of the vaccine.
  • The protection against infection tends to be modest and sometimes short-lived, but the vaccines are very effective at protecting against severe illness.“

Despite the sharp drop in COVID-19 vaccinations across the U.S. population over the years, green card and Immigrant Visa applicants had to file for a religious or moral exemption if they refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine and had no medical contraindications. Such an exemption is challenging to get when it relates to a specific vaccine, and not vaccination in general. Although vaccination requirements continue to apply, USCIS no longer requires the COVID-19 vaccine under the Trump Administration.

The U.S. Department of State is responsible for processing Immigrant Visa applications at the U.S. Consulates and U.S. Embassies abroad. As of today, January 28, 2025, the DOS’ website continues to state:

“Panel physicians who conduct medical examinations of immigrant visa applicants are required to verify that immigrant visa applicants have met the vaccination requirements, or that it is medically inappropriate for the visa applicant to receive one or more of the listed vaccinations:

  • COVID-19
  • Hepatitis A
  • Hepatitis B
  • Influenza
  • Influenza type b (Hib)
  • Measles
  • Meningococcal
  • Mumps
  • Pneumococcal
  • Pertussis
  • Polio
  • Rotavirus
  • Rubella
  • Tetanus and diphtheria toxoids
  • Varicella

In order to assist the panel physician, and to avoid delays in the processing of an immigrant visa, all immigrant visa applicants should have their vaccination records available for the panel physician’s review at the time of the immigrant medical examination.”

Because USCIS has dropped the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for green card applicants, it is expected that the DOS will do the same for Immigrant Visa applicants.

# # #
The Legal Immigrant provides general information only from Dyan Williams Law. It is based on U.S. immigration laws, regulations and policies that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Comments Off on USCIS Drops COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement for Green Card (Form I-485, Adjustment of Status) Applicants

Posted in adjustment of status, green card, immigrant petition, immigrant visa, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog

Tagged