Category Archives: expedited removal

Executive Order Cracks Down on Birth Tourism: Effects & Consequences for Nonimmigrants

Entering the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa to give birth on American soil and obtain birthright U.S. citizenship for the newborn child is known as Birth Tourism. Executive Order 14419, issued by the Trump Administration on August 6, 2026, is meant to end Birth Tourism and further prohibit any foreign national from helping a visitor to enter the U.S. to give birth.

Link Between Birthright Citizenship and Birth Tourism

Under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, birth in the United States gives the child automatic citizenship with all its rights and privileges, even if the parents are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents or have no authorized stay in the U.S.

Birth citizenship also provides the foreign national parent with potential immigration relief. For example, upon turning age 21, a U.S. citizen son or daughter may file an immigrant petition for a parent in the Immediate Relatives category, which has no numerical limits on immigrant visas available.

Prior Executive Order to Limit Birthright Citizenship 

The Trump Administration has stated that “Citizenship is not a commodity to be acquired through calculated exploitation and evasion of the immigration laws, such as by entering the United States on a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth within the Nation’s borders.”

The Administration previously issued Executive Order 14160 on January 20, 2025, to deny the issuance of documents or acceptance of documents recognizing U.S. citizenship to two groups of U.S.-born children:  (1) those whose mother was unlawfully present in the United States and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or  permanent resident at the time of birth or (2) those whose mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident at the time of birth.

Several U.S. states and nonprofit organizations challenged the Executive Order in federal courts, which blocked its implementation. On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court settled the question in Trump v. Barbara, a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups on behalf of affected families. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order 14160 violates the 14th Amendment, which is interpreted to mean that children born on American soil are U.S. citizens, regardless of whether the parents are unlawfully or temporarily present in the U.S.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ …We keep that promise today.”

Due to the federal courts’ orders and the Supreme Court’s decision, the Executive Order to restrict birthright citizenship never went into effect.

Executive Order to End Birth Tourism is Narrower

About a month after the Supreme Court’s decision, the Trump Administration issued Executive Order 14419 to end Birth Tourism. Instead of redefining birthright citizenship, it reduces access to it.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are instructed to update rules, policies, procedures or guidance as necessary and to take actions to enforce the Executive Order, including:

  • denying a visa or other travel authorization to an applicant entering or attempting to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in birth tourism;
  • revoking the visa or travel authorization and permanently barring entry of any applicant who enters or attempts to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in birth tourism;
  • denying entry to or removing an applicant who previously engaged or plans to engage in birth tourism;
  • fighting against entities, organizations, or individuals, within or outside of the United States, responsible for facilitating or enabling birth tourism in any manner.

The DOS and DHS may exempt a foreign national from actions taken pursuant to this order on humanitarian or national interest grounds, based on their discretion.

The Executive Order is a change in policy, not U.S. immigration law or the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, Birth Tourism involves entries for the main purpose of giving birth, not incidental pregnancy during lawful H-1B employment, F-1 studies, or other legitimate authorized stays.

Implementation of Birth Tourism Prevention Task Force

On August 12, 2026, the U.S. Department of State said it established the Birth Tourism Prevention Task Force and “is using all available tools to defend the integrity of U.S. citizenship, ensure nonimmigrant visas are used only for their lawful and intended purposes, and prevent their exploitation through birth tourism.”

The Fact Sheet from the Office of the Spokesperson states the Task Force:

  • reviews the activities of visa holders worldwide to identify instances of birth tourism, take action to revoke visas of those who engage in or facilitate it, and dismantle the networks that profit from this abuse.
  • addresses the abuse by analyzing and connecting information held across the Department and other federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
  • coordinates with the Department of State to address birth tourism on a global scale, examining travel histories of individuals from all around the world in order to end this exploitation and abuse.
  • has taken action to revoke more than 600 visas from foreign nationals across the globe to safeguard the nation from this abuse.

Previous Actions Against Birth Tourism

In the past, there was no specific law, regulation or policy prohibiting birth tourism per se or preventing a pregnant woman from entering the United States. Nonetheless, U.S. consular officers and customs officers often view it as a misuse of the visitor visa status and a gaming of the immigration system to give the child automatic citizenship.

On January 24, 2020, during the first term of the Trump Administration, a new rule was issued to restrict travel on a B visitor visa primarily to give birth in the United States. The updated U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual states the following on B-2 Tourist Visas:

“Travel to give birth in the United States: Visiting temporarily for pleasure does not include travel for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States. Any B nonimmigrant visa applicant who you have reason to believe will give birth during their stay in the United States is presumed to be traveling for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for the child. The applicant can overcome this presumption if you find that the primary purpose of travel is not obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child.”

If officers have reason to believe the applicants will give birth during their stay in the United States, they are required to presume that giving birth to obtain U.S. citizenship is the applicant’s primary purpose of travel.  The applicant may overcome the presumption if they show, to the consular officer’s satisfaction, they have a different and permissible primary purpose of travel.

Examples are: (1) applicant’s primary purpose for travel is to visit a dying family member, and during the visit the applicant may give birth in the United States because the pregnancy due date overlaps with the family member’s last expected months of life; (2) medically complicated pregnancy and arrangement for specialized medical care in the United States, because such specialized care is not available in or near the country where the applicant resides.

If the officer sees the applicant is pregnant at the time of applying for a tourist visa or requesting admission as a visitor, he may refuse the visa or deny entry. This is why birth tourists who hail from various countries such as China, Taiwan, South Korea, Russia, Brazil and Mexico, typically come to the United States when their pregnancy is not so obvious.

Because a visitor visa may be used for medical treatment, your showing that giving birth in the United States served or serves a health purpose can be a positive factor. An example is if the pregnancy comes with high risks or serious complications. When you declare you are coming to the U.S. to give birth, and there is a lack of medical care in or near your country, the officer may grant the visa or admission based on proof of strong ties to your country, nonimmigrant intent, sufficient funds to cover all medical costs, and legitimate purpose of travel.

Paying all medical bills or having your own medical insurance to cover the expenses related to childbirth can help prevent a visa refusal or denial of admission. Ultimately, however, the consular officer or customs officer has discretion to determine whether having a baby in the U.S. is inconsistent with the purpose of a visitor visa. If they find that this is your main purpose, instead of for recreational or business travel or medical treatment, they will refuse your request, even if you can cover the medical expenses and will not receive government assistance to pay the bills.

Practical Effects and Consequences

Longstanding U.S. immigration law allows a consular officer to deny a B-1/B-2 visitor visa or other non-dual intent visa under INA 214(b) (failure to overcome presumption of immigrant intent). Giving birth during a prior visit might cause the officer to suspect you will do this again.

A non-resident parent who travels with a U.S. citizen child may face tougher scrutiny at the U.S. port of entry. A customs officer who discovers you had a child during a prior visit in the U.S. may deny your request for admission on a temporary visa and even issue an expedited removal order, which carries a five-year bar under INA 212(a)(9)(A)(i). Until the bar expires, the person will need a Consent to Reapply for Admission or approved Form I-212 application to receive a U.S. visa or U.S. entry.

In some cases, a consular officer or customs officer may issue a more serious charge under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)(fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain a visa or entry to the United States), which is a lifetime bar. When such an inadmissibility finding is made, you may appeal directly to the agency to reconsider and rescind the decision on the basis that giving birth in the U.S., by itself, does not make you inadmissible. But as long as the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar holds, you will need a 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver or a Form I-601/212(i) immigrant waiver to be admitted to the United States

Even if you succeed in gaining a visitor visa or entering the United States as a visitor to give birth, you might still encounter problems in the future when you apply for a new visa or admission as a nonimmigrant. Also, in some cases, an existing visa may be revoked or cancelled. Federal regulations under 22 CFR 41.122 allow U.S. consular officers to revoke a nonimmigrant visa at any time, at their discretion. A U.S. Customs & Border Protection officer at the U.S. port of entry may also revoke (physically cancel) the visa in certain situations. 

Short of banning birthright citizenship, the Executive Order serves to discourage nonimmigrants from traveling to the U.S. specifically to give birth and get automatic citizenship for their newborn children. Nonimmigrants who have visas to work or study in the United States should be less affected than temporary visitors, as giving birth in the U.S. would be more incidental to their authorized stay.

The DOS and DHS are expected to rollout implementing guidance on how they will apply the Executive Order. Whether this Presidential Action holds up under any federal court action will need to be monitored over the next several months.

# # #
This content is general information and is for educational purposes only. It is based on current U.S. immigration laws, regulations and policies that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each case is different and even cases that seem similar can have different outcomes. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

CBP Vacates Expedited Removal Order + Grants Withdrawal of Application for Admission = A True Success Story

Less than 3 months after receiving our request for relief, the U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) vacated its Expedited Removal Order and INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i) Inadmissibility Finding against my client and granted her a retroactive Withdrawal of Application for Admission. Thus, the CBP no longer deems her to be an intended immigrant without a proper visa, as charged at the U.S. port of entry. By rescinding the Expedited Removal Order, it vacated the 5-year bar to entry under INA 212(a)(9)(A)(i).

Denial of F-1 Student Admission Despite Having a Valid Passport, Visa and Other Travel Documents

Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) states a person is inadmissible to the United States if he is an intended immigrant without a valid immigrant visa or other valid entry document. It is most often used by CBP to deny entry to a nonimmigrant who is believed to have engaged in unauthorized U.S. employment or has plans to do so.

At primary inspection before the CBP, my client requested entry to the United States to begin her F-1 Optional Practical Training (OPT) with a legitimate U.S. employer. Along with her valid passport containing the F-1 student visa, she had her updated Form I-20 (Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Status), Employment Authorization Document (EAD)/work card, and job offer letter.

Prior to traveling back to the United States, she had used an online platform to secure an apartment that was close to her intended workplace. She paid a deposit after communicating with the landlord through text messages. She planned to go directly to the rental property upon arrival, check the room condition, and sign the lease if everything was satisfactory.

Instead of admitting her in F-1 status, the CBP inspected her electronic devices and found her communications regarding the apartment. They searched the rental address online and discovered that it was associated with a daycare business. By telephone call, they contacted an individual who they identified as the daycare operator and said they were informed that my client was expected to work there. She had no employment authorization to perform daycare job duties, which were outside her field of study.

Based on this incorrect information, my client was taken to secondary inspection for further questioning. Ultimately, the CBP presumed that she would work at the daycare business located on the first floor of the residential home where she had arranged to live. But she had actually planned to rent the room on the second floor because it was close to her place of employment.

Facts and Arguments Supporting Rescission of Expedited Removal Order and INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i) Finding

During secondary inspection, my client explained that she had learned of the daycare business, on the first floor, from the previous tenant who mentioned it may cause some noise. She made clear that daycare work was never discussed or agreed upon, and that such employment would violate F-1 OPT regulations and conflict with her scheduled work hours, as stated in the employer’s offer letter and recruitment posting. The F-1 OPT position also required in-office presence and did not permit remote work. 

After searching her personal belongings and inspecting her phone, the CBP found only text-based conversations with the landlord regarding rental matters—no phone calls, no agreements, and no employment-related discussions with anyone from the daycare. Despite her repeated explanations, the CBP officers stated that if no employment arrangement existed, the daycare operator would not have provided details about workhours and pay on the telephone call.

In the Motion to Reconsider to CBP, I explained that my client’s sole purpose for requesting entry was to begin her lawful OPT employment. She had no plans or agreements to work at a daycare center or outside her field of study. It made no sense for her to work without authorization when she had already secured a full-time, paid OPT position.

Because she possessed all required travel documentation, had a qualifying F-1 OPT position directly related to her degree, and did not seek to work outside the scope of her authorization, there was no basis to determine that she was inadmissible under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). The evidentiary record showed that her intent was fully compliant with U.S. immigration laws and rules.

The CBP made no finding that she had failed to maintain her F-1 status during prior stays, committed fraud or willful misrepresentation of material facts to obtain U.S. immigration benefits, or otherwise violated U.S. immigration laws, rules or policies. Instead, it based its adverse decision on a presumption that she intended to engage in unauthorized employment upon entry. It disregarded my client’s credible testimony and documentary evidence showing she had a legitimate F-1 OPT position.

To support the Motion, we presented the employment offer letter and email communications with the F-1 OPT employer – both before and after the Expedited Removal Order – establishing she had intended to work in her field of study. We also provided documentary evidence reflecting my client had arranged to rent a 2nd floor room in a two-story residential home, not in a commercial building. But when she requested admission at the U.S. port of entry, the CBP looked up the address and found that it was associated with a daycare business (kindergarten service).

In her affidavit (written testimony), my client clarified that she knew a daycare was located on the first floor, but she never inquired about working there. In addition, we presented written declarations from the daycare manager and the landlord stating they did not discuss any employment, work or job arrangements with my client. All her text messages with the landlord and the prior tenant indicate that she sought to rent the 2nd floor room only.

In the legal memorandum, I described the hardships that the Expedited Removal Order caused or would cause my client. For example, the section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) finding would make it very difficult for her to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent, under INA 214(b), to receive an F-1 student visa, B1/B2 visitor visa or other nonimmigrant visa in the future.

Furthermore, the 5-year bar would require her to apply for and obtain a Consent to Reapply for Admission Following Expedited Removal before a visa could be issued. Frequently called the “I-212 waiver” – which is different from the 212(d)(3) waiver – the CTR is the official remedy for lawfully returning to the U.S. before the 5-year bar expires. But it has several drawbacks.

If the person needs a visa stamp for the purpose of her trip to the U.S., she must go through the U.S. Consulate or Embassy to request the CTR in connection with the visa application. This creates an extra hurdle because the U.S. Consulate or Embassy must first recommend the CTR for it to be forwarded to the CBP’s Admissibility Review Office (CBP-ARO) for adjudication. If there is no recommendation, there is no review by CBP-ARO on the merits of the application.

In addition, even when the CTR is recommended, it takes several months for CBP-ARO to make a decision. And when granted, it is not transferrable to a new visa. Until the 5-year bar expires, the applicant must go through the process again if she needs a new visa for re-entry to the United States.

CBP Grants Request for Relief

In its decision, the CBP noted that based on the applicable documents and information, a grant of discretion was appropriate. It rescinded the Expedited Removal order and all related charges, including the 5-year bar to entry. In lieu of an Expedited Removal Order, the CBP updated my client’s records to reflect that she withdrew her application for admission.

This is a true success story for the client and Dyan Williams Law PLLC.

# # #
This content is general information and is for educational purposes only. It is based on current U.S. immigration laws, regulations and policies that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each case is different and even cases that seem similar can have different outcomes. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

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) 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

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

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

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

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

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

Episode 11 of The Legal Immigrant podcast covers:

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

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

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

3) Immigration fraud investigations and related problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, see:

# # #

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

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

B-1 Visitor Visa: Traveling to the U.S. for Business

Is the B-1/B-2 the right visa to enter the U.S. to participate in a business meeting? Attend a conference or convention? Negotiate a contract?

Yes on the B-1, but no on a B-2 only.

If you have a combination B-1/B-2 visa, you should inform the U.S customs officer of the main purpose of your visit. Get admitted in the right classification. The B-1 is more flexible than the B-2 classification. You may engage in business activities and tourism with a B-1. But the B-2 is for tourism and social visits only, with very limited exceptions in special circumstances.

The B-1 visa or combined B-1/B-2 visa is for nonimmigrants who seek to enter the U.S. temporarily for business reasons and tourism. To get the visa or gain entry to the U.S. on this visa, you need to show you will participate in only permitted activities.

Episode 10 of The Legal Immigrant podcast summarizes:

(A) What you can do in the U.S. as a B-1 visitor – 

1) Business activities of a commercial nature. Examples:

  • engage in commercial translations
  • negotiate a contract
  • participate in business meetings
  • litigate, including to participate in a lawsuit, take a claim to court, or settle an estate
  • attend a conference
  • do independent research

2) Professional activities that do not lead to compensation or employment in the United States. Examples:

  • ministers of religion and missionaries doing missionary work
  • volunteers participating in a recognized voluntary service program
  • professional athletes competing in a tournament or sporting event of international dimension
  • investors seeking investments in U.S. 

3) Limited activities that do not amount to substantive performance of work. Examples:

  • commercial or industrial workers needed to install, service or repair equipment as required by contract of sale
  • certain foreign airline employees in an executive, supervisory or highly technical role who travel to the U.S. to join an aircraft for onward international flight
  • third/fourth-year medical students pursuing medical clerkship at U.S. medical school’s hospital (without remuneration) as part of a foreign medical school degree

(B) U.S. immigration problems that might arise if you do remote work (including work for a foreign employer) while you are in the U.S. as a visitor 

  • the connection between U.S. tax law and U.S. immigration law
  • the risk of being found to have violated status if you perform activities that are not entirely consistent with the terms and conditions of the visa

(C) The eligibility requirements for the visitor visa

  • maintain a residence abroad that you do not intend to abandon
  • intend to stay in the U.S. for a specific, limited period
  • seek entry solely to engage in legitimate activities permitted on the visa
  • have no U.S. immigration violations or criminal offenses that make you inadmissible  or otherwise qualify for a waiver of inadmissibility

While the B-1 visa and status allow a wider range of visitor activities in the U.S. — compared to the B-2 visa — it has its limits.

A visitor visa holder is not guaranteed admission to the U.S. for temporary stays. At the U.S. port of entry, the U.S. Customs & Border Protection may issue an expedited removal order if it determines the person intends to engage in activities outside the purpose of the visitor visa, or has previously violated status during earlier visits.

The expedited removal order itself creates a 5-year bar to re-entry under INA 212(a)(9)(A). If the CBP also charges the person with fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact to obtain a visa or other U.S. immigration benefit, this leads to a permanent bar under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

To request a consultation on visitor visa problems, you may submit an inquiry by email at info@dyanwilliamslaw.com or by online message at www.dyanwilliamslaw.com. 

For more information, see:

Dyan Williams, Esq.
info@dyanwilliamslaw.com
www.dyanwilliamslaw.com

# # #

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

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT