Category Archives: The Legal Immigrant – Immigration Blog

U.S. Consulate Rescinds INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Charge and Grants B1/B2 Visa: A True Success Story

Within 3 months of receiving our Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Finding Under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) with Request for B1/B2 Visitor Visa, the U.S. Consulate granted the visa to our client without requiring a 212(d)(3) waiver of inadmissibility. After he had been denied the visitor visa on three separate occasions over a 12-year period, the applicant sought our counsel to overcome the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar and get the visa.

The applicant’s visa problems began after he was denied re-entry by U.S. Customs as a visitor. At the time, he had been attending high school in the United States on a B1/B2 visitor visa. Unique circumstances led him to believe he did not need a student visa as long as he did not overstay his authorized visits.

In his last request for entry, he was specifically asked about the purpose of his visit. He admitted he had been attending high school in the United States and was seeking to complete his studies. The U.S. Customs informed him he needed a student visa and could not attend school during a B1/B2 visit. Although he was allowed to withdraw his application for admission, his visa was cancelled.

Three years later, the applicant sought a visitor visa for temporary recreational stays in the United States. The U.S. Embassy denied his first two requests under INA 214(b), i.e. failure to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent to be eligible for a visitor visa.

Ten years later, the applicant sought the visitor visa again. After placing the case in administrative processing, the U.S. Embassy issued a visa refusal notice under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)(fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact to obtain a U.S. immigration benefit).

The factual basis for the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge was not specified. But it was reasonable to assume it stemmed from his attending high school in the U.S. while in B1/B2 visitor status.

When a person engages in conduct that is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of his visa (especially within 90 days of his admission), the U.S. consular officer may presume he willfully misrepresented the true purpose of the visit. The applicant then has to rebut the presumption of misrepresentation.

In this case, the applicant violated the terms of his visitor visa by attending school. But, at the time, he was a minor (under age 18) and relied heavily on his parents to make decisions on his behalf.

The family had been in the United States on another type of visa that allowed school attendance and a longer stay. Based on discussions with the school district, the parents mistakenly assumed their son could continue his studies on a visitor visa, as long as he departed the United States every six months, before the expiration date of each authorized visit.

To deal with the INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding, the applicant contacted me for a Skype consultation. I confirmed his ultimate objective was to receive a B1/B2 visa for business trips and recreational visits, including spending time with his U.S. citizen brother.

Prior to entering a representation agreement, we discussed whether to (a) request the U.S. Embassy vacate the INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding or (b) apply for a 212(d)(3) waiver of inadmissibility. Given his young age at the time he attended school on the B1/B2 visa and the Record of Sworn Statement reflecting he declared this fact to U.S. Customs in his last request for entry, both options were viable. Ultimately, he chose option (a).

I advised the client on the information and documents to present to show he did not commit fraud or willfully misrepresent the purpose of his visit each time he was admitted to the United States on the B1/B2 visa, and then attended school. Furthermore, I counseled him on how to demonstrate strong ties to his residence abroad to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent under INA 214(b), which is necessary to qualify for the visitor visa itself.

In addition, I wrote a legal memorandum explaining the factual grounds and legal basis for the Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Finding Under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) with Request for B1/B2 Visitor Visa. I also prepared the client for what to expect at the visa interview and how to best present his case.

At the B1/B2 visa interview, the U.S. Consulate accepted the legal memorandum and the written testimonies of the applicant and his U.S. citizen brother in support of the Motion to Reconsider. The U.S. consular officer noted the case was complicated and had to be placed in administrative processing.

Three months later, the U.S. Consulate issued the B1/B2 visitor visa and made it valid for 10 years. The section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar was lifted, so there was no need for a 212(d)(3) waiver. A “clearance received” annotation was placed on the visa to further indicate his case was resolved.

After three prior failed attempts in which he did not have counsel, the applicant finally received the B1/B2 visa with our representation.

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 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. Embassy Vacates INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Charge and Issues Immigrant Visa: A True Success Story

After initially refusing our request to vacate the INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge against our client, the U.S. Embassy reconsidered its decision and issued the Immigrant Visa. Persistent follow-ups led to the applicant being cleared of the inadmissibility bar and receiving the visa for admission as a permanent resident. No Form I-601 waiver was needed because the Embassy dislodged the INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding it made in error.

Two years before attending his Immigrant Visa interview, the applicant had sought a K-1 fiance visa at the U.S. Embassy, based on his then-engagement to a U.S. citizen. At the K-1 visa interview, the U.S. consular officer determined his relationship with the K-1 petitioner was not genuine, but entered into solely for U.S. immigration benefits.

The Embassy returned the approved Form I-129F petition to USCIS for further review and revocation. Instead of issuing a Notice of Intent to Revoke, USCIS issued a termination notice almost 6 months later stating the 4-month validity period on the Form I-129F approval notice had expired, but the U.S. citizen fiance may file a new petition for the applicant. By that point, they had ended their relationship and called off the engagement. No further evidence was submitted to prove the bona fide nature of the relationship.

Prior to the K-1 visa application, our client’s mother had filed a Form I-130 immigrant petition for him. USCIS approved the petition within five months, but he had to wait several years for the priority date to become current so he could apply for an Immigrant Visa.

At his Immigrant Visa Interview, he received a refusal worksheet charging him with INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), as an applicant who sought to procure a visa by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. The Embassy noted that in adjudicating his K-1 fiance visa application, the relationship was found to not be credible.

Following the Immigrant Visa refusal due to fraud/willful misrepresentation, a close relative of the applicant contacted me for a consultation. After confirming the relationship with the K-1 petitioner was genuine but just did not work out, I agreed to represent the applicant and his mother (the Form I-130 petitioner).

I explained the applicant had the option to file a Form I-601 waiver application, as instructed by the U.S. Embassy. To get this waiver, he needed to prove to USCIS that his mother would suffer extreme hardships if he were denied admission to the United States. The long processing time and the high evidentiary standards made this a challenging path to take. The I-601 filing fee of $930 was also a factor to consider.

Because the applicant had proof of a bona fide relationship with the K-1 petitioner that was not previously submitted to USCIS or to the U.S. Consulate — and USCIS never revoked the Form I-129F approval but instead issued a termination notice — I counseled the applicant on another option, i.e. file a Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Finding Under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) with Request for Immigrant Visa directly with the U.S. Embassy. The applicant and his family decided to go with the Motion instead of the I-601 application.

It took several months for the applicant and his family to gather all the written testimonies and documents I had recommended they provide to support the Motion to Reconsider. With this evidence and my legal memorandum arguing how the INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge was made in error, I filed a request with the U.S. Embassy to reconsider the inadmissibility finding and grant the Immigrant Visa.

Upon its first review of our Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Finding, the Embassy sent a reply within a week, in which it stated the applicant made a material misrepresentation in a prior K-1 visa application and was permanently ineligible to receive a visa. It added it would not accept any further evidence or appeal regarding the visa application and instructed the applicant to file for an I-601 waiver of inadmissibility.

Two weeks later, with the applicant’s consent, I submitted a Request for Supervisory Review to the U.S. Embassy, asking it to confirm whether the Motion to Reconsider was duly reviewed and highlighting the errors in the inadmissibility finding. The Embassy replied it was reviewing my inquiry and there was no guarantee on how long it would take to get a response. It again instructed the applicant to file for an I-601 waiver.

After months of waiting and sending follow-up inquiries, we finally received a response from the U.S. Embassy stating it had completed a supervisory review to reconsider this case and there has been no change to the original officer’s adjudication. It noted the applicant may file for a waiver.

A few weeks later, I filed a Request for Advisory Opinion with the Visa Office (U.S.Department of State’s Office of Legal Affairs in the Directorate of Visa Services). In particular, I asked them to review the legal question regarding whether the U.S. Embassy properly applied INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) when it denied the Immigrant Visa in this case. I provided them with a copy of the Motion to Reconsider, including the legal memorandum and supporting evidence. The Visa Office responded it had followed up on my inquiry and the case was under review.

Several months later, the Visa Office sent an update that the U.S. Embassy provided instructions to the applicant to proceed with his Immigrant Visa application. The Embassy instructed him to submit an updated Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, and financial support documents. It further requested he complete a DNA test to verify the biological relationship with his mother (the Form I-130 petitioner).

After complying with the U.S. Embassy’s instructions, the applicant finally received his Immigrant Visa. He was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident to join his mother and other close relatives who were eagerly waiting for this reunion.

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

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

Saying thanks and celebrating 5th year anniversary

As we approach Thanksgiving Day in the United States, I say thank you for your audience, referrals and, most of all, trusting Dyan Williams Law PLLC to help you solve your, your friend or your family member’s U.S. immigration problem.

Over the past five years — since I started my solo law practice on October 20, 2014 — I have focused on client matters that involve proving the bona fide nature of a marriage and overcoming marriage fraud findings in immigration matters; obtaining waivers for unlawful presence, fraud/misrepresentation and immigration violations; challenging expedited removal orders and visa refusals; and getting difficult naturalization cases approved. 

When I opened the virtual doors of the firm and launched its website at dyanwilliamslaw.com, I set no grandiose plans to hit a target revenue or grow my client list to a point where a physical office, a full-time staff and all the other benefits of a traditional firm would emerge. 

I had already worked at two other firms, with the last eight years as a senior managing attorney. I sought to create a law practice that would not only provide a minimum viable income, but also greater flexibility and increased autonomy to choose carefully and not feel rushed all the time.  

Instead of looking at what other firms were doing, I decided to stay in alignment with my own values and vision. This means taking on only certain types of U.S. immigration matters where I have the deepest knowledge, expertise and interest to give the most beneficial advice and counsel. I do not spread myself too thin or become frazzled by accepting every single client opportunity, with each carrying tremendous responsibilities and weighty obligations.

While it’s more common for lawyers to say yes to a new client matter, my default state is to say no. I offer representation only after I have determined that the case will make the best use of my skills, time, energy, focus and resources — and the potential client is talking to the best counsel for his or her problem.

Knowing how to use the right tools to repair and rebuild the client’s situation is key. If there are no available tools (e.g. existing laws, regulations, policies), I tell the person in a straightforward way and often point out possible steps to a future remedy.

When I am asked about the chance of success, I do not respond with a percentage, which is arbitrary. I simply say that my offering representation reflects that I will help prepare an approvable case, no matter the obstacles and complexities. While there is no guarantee of success, the inputs are controlled and the standards are upheld to maximize the probability of a favorable outcome.  

In the first week of business in October 2014, I took on two new clients with one applying for naturalization and the other seeking a marriage-based green card. (They were among my first success stories.) The first article, Fraud, Lies, and USCIS: Pitfalls in Naturalization, was published on our blog, The Legal Immigrant, 11 days later. 

The number of subscribers to the blog and number of clients at my firm have grown considerably over the years. My emphasis is the same: producing high-quality work consistently and deliberately with the goal of creating valuable results for each client. To learn more, read my article on my other blog, Staying Solo Successfully

Be sure to also check out two of my latest success stories on the approval of problematic I-751 petitions:

Well-Documented Form I-751 Petition (After Divorce) + Full Preparation for Interview = A True Success Story

Timely Response to Request for Evidence + In-Depth Preparation for I-751 Interview = A True Success Story

Email or call me to set up a consultation if you, a friend or a family member needs to remove conditions on permanent residence or has another U.S. immigration matter that requires my insight.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

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

###

Photo by: jdesroc

Timely Response to Request for Evidence + In-Depth Preparation for I-751 Interview = A True Success Story

The USCIS Field Office in Minneapolis approved our clients’ joint Form I-751 petition to remove conditions on residence, even though they lived apart in different states during the marriage and had just moved in together at the time of the interview. A timely response to the Request for Evidence and in-depth preparation for the I-751 interview were essential to getting the approval.

When the U.S. citizen’s I-130 petition and the beneficiary’s I-485 green card application were approved years earlier, the couple resided together. But the beneficiary later moved to another state where job opportunities were better and the living expenses were lower. The couple lived apart for about three years following their marriage. The U.S. citizen delayed relocating with his spouse to fulfill family obligations in his home state. In the meantime, they made a few trips to visit each other and kept up long-distance communication through telephone calls and text messages.

Explanatory Response to Request for Evidence

On their own, the couple filed the joint Form I-751 petition with their tax returns and a few affidavits as supporting evidence. The conditional resident contacted me, for the first time, when she received a Request for Evidence from USCIS instructing her to submit more evidence to show she and her spouse entered the marriage in good faith and continue to share a life together.

USCIS noted the evidence should include proof of children as a result of the marriage, evidence of joint residence, documents showing combined financial resources, and affidavits from third parties who have direct knowledge of the relationship.

In the consultation, I described the documentary evidence to submit in lieu of a joint residential lease, joint bills and other proof of a shared residence. I also noted that detailed affidavits from the couple were necessary to explain the compelling reasons for living separately in different states and their concrete plans to move in together where the conditional resident lives.

The Service may waive the interview requirement only when the documentary evidence is enough to support an approval without question. Because the conditional resident and her U.S. citizen spouse would continue to live in separate states at the time the RFE response was due, I explained that an interview with USCIS was likely.

Maintaining separate residences is a serious negative factor to consider when evaluating the bona fide nature of a marriage. USCIS will not approve an I-751 without an interview when there is no proof of a joint residence.

Falsely claiming to live together is a foolish and risky action to take. This makes the conditional resident subject to being charged with INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)(fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain U.S. immigration benefits), which is a lifetime inadmissibility bar to receiving permanent residence. In addition, USCIS may conduct an investigation – such as search open source records and make unannounced visits to the claimed residence – to verify whether the couple really lives together. Such investigations may occur at any time while the petition is pending.

Thorough Preparation for I-751 Interview

Eight months after the RFE was issued, USCIS sent the conditional resident an interview notice to complete the Form I-751 processing. At that point, the U.S. citizen had recently relocated and entered into a new lease agreement with his spouse for their shared residence.

The couple contacted me for representation at the I-751 interview. Before agreeing to attend the interview as counsel, we had a telephone consultation in which we discussed the status of their relationship, the re-establishment of their joint residence, and the potential concerns and questions the USCIS officer would likely have at the interview.

I also counseled them on the additional documentary evidence to submit at the interview. This included their joint residential lease, joint bank account statement, joint utility bill, and home property insurance.

After thoroughly preparing them for what to expect, I attended the interview with them a few days later. The USCIS officer interviewed them separately and asked a variety of questions on the premarital courtship, marital history, living arrangements, medical conditions, family dynamics, reasons for the separate residences, the U.S. citizen’s relocation, and current home they share. Their testimonies were credible and overall consistent with each other.

Removal of Conditions on Permanent Residence Following Completion of I-751 Interview

At the end of the interview, the USCIS officer issued a notice stating the petition has been recommended for approval and an approval notice would be mailed if final approval is granted.

A week later, the couple received the official Form I-797, Approval Notice removing the conditions on residence. The 10-year green card was also mailed in a separate correspondence. Because the applicant had received her conditional residence four years ago and remains married to the U.S. citizen petitioner, she already meets the continuous residence requirement for naturalization (U.S. citizenship).

Separate Residences During Marriage Creates an Obstacle to Receiving I-751 Approval

The years of maintaining separate residences made it harder for this otherwise bona fide married couple to receive an I-751 approval. Without evidence of their trips to visit each other and long-distance communications, as well as their own affidavits and third-party affidavits describing their marriage, the interview would have been tougher.

Further preparation on the testimonies and documentary evidence to present at the I-751 interview was also critical to getting the conditions on permanent residence removed. It was important for them to tell the truth about the separate residences instead of offer fabricated information about their living arrangements. Falsifying evidence is one of the quickest ways to end up with inconsistencies and a denial.

With guidance from counsel, the conditional resident received an I-751 approval despite living separately from her U.S. citizen spouse for several years during the marriage.

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