Category Archives: immigration fraud

Grant of Motion to Vacate Inadmissibility (Misrepresentation) Finding + Issuance of F-1 Student Visa = A True Success Story

Posted on February 23, 2017 | Comments Off on Grant of Motion to Vacate Inadmissibility (Misrepresentation) Finding + Issuance of F-1 Student Visa = A True Success Story

On February 13, 2017, the U.S. Embassy granted my client’s Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Determination Under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) (willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain immigration benefit) and issued his F-1 student visa. He may now pursue his studies in the United States, starting in fall 2017, after he was previously denied the visa two and a half years ago for misrepresenting information in his application.

The U.S. Embassy approved the motion and F-1 visa request within 3 weeks of when my client appeared for his visa interview and asked for a rescission of the inadmissibility finding.

Prior to the visa interview, I guided him in gathering documentary evidence and preparing his affidavit (written testimony) explaining his reasons for failing to disclose certain information in his prior student visa application. Citing to the record, I prepared the strongest legal briefs in support of a Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Finding, as well as a 212(d)(3)(A) nonimmigrant waiver application as a backup option.

In his first F-1 student visa application, my client failed to disclose his prior names and previous visit to the United States. After the U.S. Embassy charged him as inadmissible and denied his visa due to misrepresentation, it instructed him to file for a nonimmigrant waiver of inadmissibility.

He did not file for the waiver, but instead hired another attorney to challenge the inadmissibility finding. The attorney submitted a Request for Advisory Opinion to the Visa Office, but did not counsel him to re-apply for the F-1 student visa and appeal directly to the U.S. Embassy to vacate the inadmissibility finding.

By the time he consulted me, he had been waiting for more than 2 years since his first F-1 visa application was denied and more than 1 year since his prior attorney filed the Request for Advisory Opinion (with no decision to date).

A willful misrepresentation charge under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) permanently bars an applicant from obtaining a visa or entering the United States. To be inadmissible on this ground, he must not only willfully misrepresent information, but the information must also be material to his visa eligibility.

After reviewing my client’s case, I concluded his refusal to disclose information – which was specifically requested on the visa application form – did not affect whether he qualified for the visa. He also had compelling reasons for not providing the information, which had nothing to do with obtaining the visa.

I advised him to re-apply for the F-1 visa and, as option A, file a motion to vacate the inadmissibility finding directly with the U.S. Embassy.  He also agreed to have a 212(d)(3)(A) nonimmigrant waiver request prepared, as option B, in the event the U.S. Embassy denied his motion to vacate.

The U.S. Embassy agreed to vacate the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge and issue the F-1 visa after I presented a convincing legal argument, persuasive documentary evidence, and a detailed affidavit from my client showing he needed to enter the United States to attend school, has strong ties to his country, would pose no harm to the community, and did not commit material misrepresentation to be inadmissible.

The 212(d)(3)(A) waiver request was available as an alternative solution, but it normally takes at least four months to process. The client needed to receive his visa by May 1st to confirm attendance at the school, which had deferred his admission for more than two years and could not hold his place beyond fall 2017.

He was relieved and happy when the U.S. Embassy granted the motion to vacate inadmissibility finding and issued the F-1 visa by February 13th, which spared him from using the lengthier waiver application process.

Because the permanent bar to receiving a visa or entering the United States under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) no longer exists, it will be much easier for him to obtain visa renewals and travel to the United States.

My client, who lives in East Asia, communicated with me by Skype initially, and then by telephone and email during the course of representation. At the time he consulted me, he had contacted another attorney to file a 212(d)(3)(A) waiver request. The attorney told him it would take at least 4 months to prepare the waiver application and if he wanted it sooner, he would have to pay a much higher fee. The attorney did not advise him to file a motion to vacate the inadmissibility finding with the U.S. Embassy, even though this was the better option under the circumstances.

I prepared both the motion and the 212(d)(3)(A) waiver request at a reasonable fee within 2 months. The foreign national was pleased with the collaborative process and thankful for the favorable, timely results. This is a true success story in early 2017 for Dyan Williams Law PLLC.

Helping clients overcome visa refusals through the rescission of inadmissibility findings or through waiver grants are among my top areas of expertise. Enabling a foreign national to obtain a visa to enter the U.S. lawfully – especially after he has been deemed inadmissible- takes a lot of time, attention, and work. But the potential benefits are worth the dedicated effort.

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

Photo by: Tara R.

Comments Off on Grant of Motion to Vacate Inadmissibility (Misrepresentation) Finding + Issuance of F-1 Student Visa = A True Success Story

Posted in immigration fraud, nonimmigrant visa, success story, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog, waiver

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Effects & Impact of Trump’s Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements

Posted on January 27, 2017 | Comments Off on Effects & Impact of Trump’s Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements

On day five of his Administration, January 25, 2017, President Donald Trump issued his first executive order on immigration, titled, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements. It prioritizes the detention and removal of unauthorized immigrants apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Here is a description of Trump’s executive order on border security and immigration enforcement, including the potential effects and impact: 

Authority: In the order, Trump cites to the Constitution and federal laws, such as the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA), the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as grounds for his presidential authority.

The president may set the policy and practices of immigration agencies and officials, in compliance with federal law set by Congress and the U.S. Constitution.

Purpose: The order directs departments and agencies to “deploy all lawful means to secure the Nation’s southern border, to prevent further illegal immigration into the United States, and to repatriate illegal aliens swiftly, consistently, and humanely.”

Policy Highlights: 

1. Physical Wall. The executive order instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to take steps to immediately plan, design and construct a physical wall along the southern border. The Secretary must identify and allocate federal funds for planning, designing and constructing the wall.

“Wall” means “a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier.” The “southern border” means “contiguous land border between the United States and Mexico, including all points of entry.”

2. Detention Facilities. The executive order instructs the Secretary to allocate resources to immediately construct, operate, control, or establish contracts to construct, operate or control facilities to detain aliens at or near the land border with Mexico. The Secretary shall immediately assign asylum officers and immigration judges to detention facilities for the purpose of conducting reasonable fear determinations and removal proceedings, respectively.

3. Detention for Illegal Entry (End “Catch-and-Release”). The executive order instructs the Secretary to take immediate, appropriate actions to ensure the detention of aliens apprehended for violating immigration law, pending the outcome of their removal proceedings or their removal from the U.S. The Secretary shall issue new policy guidance to all Department of Homeland Security personnel on detention use, including the termination of “catch and release,” which involves persons being released in the U.S. shortly after their apprehension, and while their removal proceedings are pending.

4. Additional Border Patrol Agents. The executive order instructs the Secretary to take appropriate action to hire 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents, and ensure they are assigned to duty as soon as is practicable.

5.  Foreign Aid Reporting. The executive order directs all executive departments and agencies to quantify federal aid or assistance to the Government of Mexico on an annual basis for the past 5 years.

6. Federal-State Agreements. The executive order instructs the Secretary to immediately engage with the Governors of the States, as well as local officials, to enter into INA 287(g) agreements. This allows for State and local law enforcement officials to perform functions of the immigration officers in relation to the investigation, apprehension , or detention of aliens in the United States under the Secretary’s direction and supervision.

7. Parole, Asylum, and Removal.  The executive order instructs the Secretary to take immediate, appropriate action to ensure the parole and asylum provisions of immigration law are not exploited to prevent the removal of otherwise removable aliens.

8. Priority Enforcement. The executive order instructs the Attorney General to establish prosecution guidelines and allocate resources to ensure federal prosecutors give high priority to prosecutions of offenses connected to the southern border.

Effects and Impact:

1.  Building the wall 

The estimated cost of building the wall is at least $10 billion. During his election campaign, Trump stated Mexico will pay for it.  But his  executive order calls for the allocation of federal funds to plan, design and construct the wall. Congress must approve funding for any new physical barrier along the southern border. This means American taxpayers will front the cost for the wall.

Trump says Mexico will pay the money back later. His Administration suggested imposing a 20% tax on goods imported  from Mexico to pay for the wall. But experts say this will lead to higher prices for American consumers, result in trade wars, and jeopardize U.S. jobs.

Another idea floated by the Administration is seizing or taxing remittance payments from immigrants sending money earned in the U.S. (their country of residence) to their families in Mexico (their native country). Trump has said the USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law may be used to accomplish this feat, but such an action will likely be met with legal battles, logistical obstacles, and economic drawbacks.

Between 2000 and 2010, U.S. taxpayers spent $90 billion on border security. The costs involve deploying National Guard troops to the border, paying U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, building barriers, employing drug-sniffing dogs, and using predator drones.

In 2006, under the Bush Administration, Boeing and other companies were awarded a federal contract, named Secure Border Initiative Net (SBInet), to build a high-tech, “virtual fence” along the southwest border. Most of the 2,000-mile border between Mexico and the U.S includes desert plains, steep hills and other natural barriers that are hard to cross. At the time, about 88 miles of physical fencing existed and the U.S. government planned to increase the physical fences to 370 miles by the end of the following year.

The Obama Administration embraced SBInet, but cancelled the project in 2011, following mounting questions from Congress regarding feasibility, viability, cost and effectiveness. By that point, about $1 billion had been spent.

Skepticism concerning Trump’s proposed wall is warranted. John Kelly, who was recently sworn in as Secretary of Homeland Security, said a physical barrier is not enough. In his confirmation hearing, he stated, “If you build a wall, you would still have to back that wall up with patrolling by human beings, by sensors, by observation devices.”

2. Increasing Detentions and Expedited Removals

Enormous amounts of manpower, resources, and technology are already dedicated to securing the nation’s borders. In 2014, the number of Border Patrol agents grew to nearly 21,000, over a 500%  increase from 1992 when there were about 4,000 agents.

In July 2006, then-Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, announced the  end of the”catch and release” policy. Since then, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began detaining more individuals while they wait for their immigration court dates. On average, in 2006, DHS detained 21,450 people on a daily basis, compared to over 40,000 this year.

DHS also increased the issuance of expedited removal orders to persons caught at the border, rather than allow them to return without the legal consequences of a removal. In 2014, DHS removed 414,481 persons, compared to 280,974 persons in 2006.

Trump’s executive order aims to increase the size of the enforcement agencies, create more detention facilities for persons apprehended along the southern border, and end “catch and release.”

Although the “catch and release” policy ended under the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration issued a Policy Memorandum on the apprehension, detention and removal or undocumented immigrants, which some labeled as “catch and release 2.0”. The policy divided enforcement priorities into three general categories: Priority 1: Aliens who pose a threat to national security, border security, or public safety. Priority 2: Aliens who are misdemeanants and new immigration violators.  Priority 3: All other immigration violators.

The Policy Memorandum instructed the agencies to focus on priority one and priority two offenders, instead of wasting resources on arresting and detaining priority three offenders. Because Trump’s executive order does not make these distinctions, it gives immigration enforcement agents more freedom to apply the detention and expedited removal process to all persons who they find ineligible for relief, particularly those apprehended at the border.

Federal funds must be allocated to operate detention facilities and detain hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year. The use of detention facilities is a very costly way to deter illegal crossings or other immigration violations. More affordable alternatives include parole/release on own recognizance, bonds, regular check-ins with immigration agents, regular home visits and check-ins, telephonic monitoring, and electronic ankle bracelet monitoring.

The executive order, which claims abuse of parole and asylum provisions, could also result in due process issues for asylum-seeking families fleeing to the border. This includes women and children from the Northern Triangle (Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador) with credible asylum claims. Human rights groups and immigration advocates have raised concerns about detaining individuals escaping violence and persecution in their home countries. There are more humane and cost-effective alternatives to detention.

3. Deputizing State and Local Law Enforcement Officers to Perform the Duties of Federal Immigration Agents

Section 287(g) of the INA allows delegation of immigration authority to state and local law enforcement officers.  The 287(g) program permits a state or local law enforcement entity to partner with U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), under a joint Memorandum of Agreement, to enforce federal immigration law in their jurisdiction.

The 287(g) program was criticized for damaging public safety, being prone to racial profiling, and lacking oversight.  In 2009, ICE revised the 287(g) program to prioritize the arrest and detention of undocumented immigrants with criminal histories. In a December 2012 news release, ICE announced it would not renew any of its agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies that operate task forces under the 287(g) program.

At that point, ICE concluded that other enforcement programs, including Secure Communities, are a more efficient use of resources for focusing on priority cases. Introduced in 2008, Secure Communities was a DHS program designed to identify immigrants in U.S. jails who are removable under immigration law. Participating jails sent the arrestee’s fingerprints not only to criminal databases, but also to immigration databases. No local law enforcement agencies were deputized to enforce immigration laws and ICE had only a technological presence in jails and prisons.

In November 2014, then-Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, issued a memorandum discontinuing the Secure Communities program, and replacing it with the Priority Enforcement Program to focus on convicted criminals and others who pose a danger to public safety. The memorandum instructed ICE to replace requests for detention (i.e., requests that an agency hold an individual beyond the point at which they would otherwise be released) with requests for notification (i.e. , requests that state or local law enforcement notify ICE of a pending release during the time that person is otherwise in custody under state or local authority).

Trump’s executive order promises to revive the 287(g) program, which allows states and localities to engage in immigration enforcement to supplement federal efforts. This practice can create mistrust of local law enforcement and involve the use of limited resources to detain and subsequently remove persons with only traffic stops or minor infractions.

With over 500,000 removal cases pending in fiscal year 2017, and immigrants facing years long delays before a judge makes a final decision on their case, the immigration court system is already heavily backlogged. 287(g) agreements fail to prioritize dangerous criminals over undocumented immigrants who pose no threat to public safety. They also tend to reduce cooperation from immigrant communities, which is crucial to preventing and investigating crimes.

Conclusion

Building a wall, increasing detention, and deputizing state and local law enforcement officers to enforce immigration law are consistent with Trump’s campaign promises. But they could very well backfire in the form of wasted taxpayers’ money, squandering of limited resources, unbearable pressure on the already backlogged immigration court system, and reduced cooperation between immigrant communities and their state and local law enforcement entities.

For information on Trump’s other executive orders on immigration, read:

Effects & Impact of Trump’s Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States

Effects & Impact of Trump’s Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

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

Photo by: Clive Darra

Comments Off on Effects & Impact of Trump’s Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements

Posted in deferred action, expedited removal, immigration consequences of criminal convictions, immigration fraud, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog

Tagged , , , , , ,

Grant of Motion to Vacate Expedited Removal Order + Rescission of Misrepresentation Charge = A True Success Story

Posted on November 30, 2016 | Comments Off on Grant of Motion to Vacate Expedited Removal Order + Rescission of Misrepresentation Charge = A True Success Story

On November 9, 2016, I received a telephone call from the U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) on a Motion to Vacate Expedited Removal Order I had filed on October 31st (only 9 days earlier). I had appealed to the CBP Field Office, which denied my client admission at the U.S. port of entry, to rescind the removal order and the charge that she willfully misrepresented material fact to gain entry into the U.S. as a visitor.

My client sought entry into the U.S. on a valid B1/B2 visitor visa, which she obtained six months before she married her U.S. citizen spouse. Following the marriage in her home country, she and her elderly parents arrived at an international U.S. airport for a temporary visit. Her American spouse also accompanied them on their first trip to the U.S.

Her plan was to tour the U.S. with her parents and get accustomed to the American lifestyle and culture before she returned to her home country to start the marriage-based immigrant visa process. They had return airline tickets to leave the U.S. within two weeks.

At primary inspection, she and her parents presented the proper travel documents (valid passports) and entry documents (unexpired 10-year, B1/B2 visitor visas) to the CBP officer. While her parents were admitted as visitors, she was pulled into secondary inspection.

During secondary inspection, the CBP officer questioned her about the purpose of her trip. She explained the temporary nature of her visit and, while she was reaching for her return airline ticket, the officer took her personal belongings and searched through them.

Among her personal belongings was a folder containing several documents. In the folder, the CBP officer found two letters from an employer in her home country that were contradictory. The first letter stated she had resigned from her position, indicating she was no longer employed. The second letter stated she was on a leave of absence, implying she still had a job.

She immediately clarified that the second letter contained false information and she had in fact resigned from her job. She described her plans to return to her home country on time and later apply for an immigrant visa, based on her marriage to a U.S. citizen.

Instead of allowing her to withdraw her application for admission due to lack of a proper visa, the CBP detained and interrogated her for at least five hours. She was questioned by two CBP officers until her Sworn Statement was taken about eight hours after she arrived at the airport.

Using a Form I-867A & B, Record of Sworn Statement in Proceedings under Section 235(b)(1) of the Act, the CBP officer documented her testimony in a question and answer format. My client signed the Sworn Statement and initialed each page without fully reading or understanding the contents.

The CBP issued a Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal Order, finding her inadmissible, denying her entry, and ordering her expeditiously removed on two counts. The first charge was under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), i.e. lack of proper travel documents. The second (and more serious) charge was under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), i.e. fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain admission into the U.S. by presenting a fake letter.

My client was sent back to her country the following day on the next available flight. Her spouse and parents booked airline tickets and returned there as well. A week later, she and her spouse completed a video consultation with me via Skype.

In the consultation, I explained that the expedited removal order, by itself, subjects you to a 5-year bar to reentry. And a charge of fraud/willful misrepresentation under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) furthers bars you permanently from entering the U.S.

I described the two main options to immigrate to the U.S. following an expedited removal order with a misrepresentation charge.

Option A is to submit a Motion to Vacate the Expedited Removal Order to the CBP Field Office that issued the order. Because this request is, in essence, a motion to reopen or reconsider to the Service, the CBP must receive it within 30 days of the date of the order.

Option A is available if the applicant has factual grounds and legal claims to challenge the CBP’s determination that she is inadmissible to the U.S. and must be expeditiously removed from the U.S.

Option B is to file an  I-212, application for permission to reapply for admission after removal, to overcome the 5-year bar. Plus file an I-601, application for INA 212(i) waiver of inadmissibility, to be excused from the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge – a permanent bar. Both waivers must be filed in conjunction with the immigrant visa application, and are typically submitted at or after the visa interview.

Option B is available if the applicant meets the eligibility requirements for the I-212 waiver and I-601 waiver. To get the I-212 waiver, the applicant must have favorable factors (e.g. close family ties in the U.S.) that outweigh the unfavorable factors (e.g. bad moral character). To receive the I-601 waiver, the applicant needs a qualifying relative (i.e. U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent) who will suffer extreme hardship if she is not admitted to the U.S.

The foreign national and her American spouse chose Option A as their primary solution, and Option B as their backup plan. Both options require strong documentary evidence, favorable facts, and persuasive legal arguments for an approval to be possible.

During the next three weeks that followed the consultation, I counseled my client and her spouse on the documentary evidence to gather for the request to vacate expedited removal order. The evidence demonstrated the temporary nature of the planned visit, my client’s ongoing ties to her home country, and her and her spouse’s good moral character.

Furthermore, I reviewed the Sworn Statement and Notice and Order of Expedited Removal Order, the agency’s policy manual, and applicable case law to formulate the strongest legal arguments to support the motion.

In the Motion to Expedite Removal Order, I noted that my client had proper travel documents in the form of an unexpired passport and valid visitor visa. I argued she was not inadmissible under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) because it was appropriate for her to travel to the U.S. on a valid B1/B2 visa for a temporary visit, even though she was married to a U.S. citizen.

In addition, I explained why the CBP made an error by making a willful misrepresentation charge under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). I pointed out that my client did not affirmatively provide the fake leave of absence letter to the CBP officer, who found it during his search of her personal belongings. I added that even if she had misrepresented a material fact, she timely recanted it by admitting the letter contained wrong information and clarifying she was unemployed in her home country.

I pointed out the CBP should have at least given her the opportunity to withdraw her application for admission, rather than issue an expedited removal order that subjected her not only to a 5-year bar, but also to a permanent bar.

The normal processing time for a Motion to Vacate Expedited Removal Order is 6 months. To my pleasant surprise, it took less than 10 days for CBP to review the motion and make a decision in this case.

Four days after the CBP Field Office received the motion, a CBP officer telephoned me to convey they were taking the request into serious consideration.

On November 9th, which was 9 days after receiving the motion, the Watch Commander at the CBP Field Office called to say he would vacate the expedited removal order and treat the case as a withdrawal of application for admission to the U.S. He noted that my client was no longer barred from entering the U.S.

The foreign national no longer has a 5-year bar to reentry due to the removal order or a permanent bar to reentry due to the willful misrepresentation charge. She now readily qualifies for a marriage-based immigrant visa without needing any waivers of inadmissibility.

The rescission of the removal order and dismissal of the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge means my client will not need an I-212 waiver or I-601 waiver to get the immigrant visa. This will make it significantly easier and faster for her to immigrate to the U.S. (because waiver requests often take 6 to 12 months to be adjudicated).

My client, her spouse and I communicated by Skype, telephone and email. They decided to hire me upon completing the initial video consultation, in which I laid out a strategy and action plan to resolve their immigration predicament.

Although we never met in person, we worked together effectively to create a desired and expeditious outcome. I continue to represent them in their I-130 immigrant petition and immigrant visa process.

The speedy approval of the request to vacate expedited removal order and dismissal of the misrepresentation charge is a true success story in 2016 for Dyan Williams Law PLLC.

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

Photo by: Ian D. Keating

Comments Off on Grant of Motion to Vacate Expedited Removal Order + Rescission of Misrepresentation Charge = A True Success Story

Posted in expedited removal, green card, immigrant petition, immigrant visa, immigration fraud, success story, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog, waiver, willful misrepresentation

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

What should you do to get an I-601 waiver for immigration fraud or misrepresentation?

Posted on January 29, 2016 | Comments Off on What should you do to get an I-601 waiver for immigration fraud or misrepresentation?

Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) permanently bars you from immigrating to the U.S. or being lawfully admitted to the U.S. when you have been found to have (1) committed fraud or willful misrepresentation to gain immigration benefits, or (2) made a false claim to U.S. citizenship for any purpose or benefit under immigration, federal or state law.

If you are inadmissible due to fraud or misrepresentation, you need an I-601 waiver, available under INA § 212(i), to get a green card or immigrant visa. There is no waiver for false claims to U.S. citizenship, but you may have defenses and exceptions to establish the bar does not apply to you.

 

What Must You  Submit When Requesting an I-601 [INA § 212(i)] Waiver?

A section 212(i) waiver applicant must submit a completed and signed Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Form I-601 filing fee and sometimes a biometrics fee are required.

The Form I-601 instructions include a list of supporting documents you should submit with your waiver request. Examples are affidavits from yourself and third parties describing extreme hardships; expert opinions; medical documentation; and reports of conditions in your home country.

Evidence of extreme hardship 

If you qualify for the waiver on the basis that your U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, parent, or K visa petitioner will suffer extreme hardship if you are denied admission to the U.S., you must present documentary evidence of the “extreme hardship.”

(NOTE: A U.S. citizen or permanent resident son or daughter is not a qualifying relative for the purpose of proving extreme hardship in an I-601 fraud waiver request.)

Similarly, if you are a VAWA self-petitioner applying for the waiver, you must show the denial of admission will result in “extreme hardship” to yourself (or qualifying relatives).

The agency considers a variety of factors when determining whether there is extreme hardship. They include:

  • Health: Ongoing or specialized treatment requirements for a physical or mental condition; availability and quality of such treatment in your country, anticipated duration of the treatment; whether a condition is chronic or acute, or long-or short-term; need for applicant to assist with physical or mental conditions.
  • Financial Considerations: Future employability; loss due to sale of home or business or termination of a professional practice; decline in standard of living; ability to recoup short-term losses; cost of extraordinary needs such as special education or training for children; cost of care for family members (e.g. elderly and sick parents).
  • Education:  Loss of opportunity for higher education; lower quality or limited scope of education options; disruption of current program; requirement to be educated in a foreign language or culture with ensuing loss of time for grade or pay level; availability of special requirements, such as training programs or internships in specific fields.
  • Personal Considerations: Close relatives in the U.S.; separation from spouse or children; ages of involved parties; length of residence and community ties in the U.S.
  • Special Factors: Cultural and language barriers; religious and ethnic obstacles; social unrest or civil war in your country; valid fears of persecution, physical harm, or injury; social ostracism or stigma; access to social institutions or structures for support, guidance and protection.

Does Having an Immigration Attorney Make a Difference? 

Filling out the Form I-601 is just the first step. The harder part is convincing the agency that you are eligible for the waiver and deserve it as a matter of discretion.

Although “extreme hardship” is not defined by immigration law, it is more than just the normal emotional hardships or financial difficulties that result from family separation or relocation.  A good lawyer will help you prove your qualifying relatives will suffer extreme hardship if they are separated from you while you are abroad, or if they move overseas to be with you. If you are a VAWA self-petitioner, the lawyer will also help prove you personally would suffer extreme hardship if you are denied admission.

Immigration fraud/misrepresentation is particularly serious. The presence of aggravating factors (e.g. criminal record) and lack of positive factors (e.g. active involvement in community or volunteer organizations) could lead to a denial of your waiver request. Needing another waiver, such as a section 212(h) waiver (for criminal and related grounds) or a section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) waiver (for unlawful presence), further complicates your case. A good lawyer will help you prove the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable factors in your case.

It’s much harder to get an I-601 waiver [INA § 212(i) waiver] when you file it on your own and don’t have the benefit of counsel. You have 30 days to file a motion to reopen/reconsider or an appeal if your waiver request is denied. Otherwise, you may re-file the application with new, material evidence. Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review an agency’s decision on an I-601 waiver.

A diligent, experienced immigration attorney will advise you on the documentary evidence to submit, prepare a legal brief explaining how you qualify for the waiver and why you deserve it, and put together a strong waiver application to maximize the chance of success.

For more information on when the fraud/willful misrepresentation bar applies, who qualifies for the I-601 [INA § 212(i)] Waiver, and the limitations of the waiver, read our related article, When do you need an I-601 Waiver due to immigration fraud or misrepresentation (and how do you get it)? 

###

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

Photo by: Kevin Dooley

Comments Off on What should you do to get an I-601 waiver for immigration fraud or misrepresentation?

Posted in adjustment of status, good moral character, green card, immigrant petition, immigrant visa, immigration fraud, K-1 visa, K-3 visa, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog, waiver

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Defenses to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) Inadmissibility (False Claim to U.S. Citizenship)

Posted on February 9, 2015 | Comments Off on Defenses to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) Inadmissibility (False Claim to U.S. Citizenship)

Several elements must be met for an applicant to be permanently inadmissible to the United States under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii), i.e. false claim to U.S. citizenship. A 212(d)(3) waiver may be requested if you are barred on this ground and seek to enter the U.S. as a nonimmigrant. There is no immigrant waiver for this inadmissibility bar.

What are the Potential Defenses to a False U.S. Citizenship Claim? 

A person who is charged with INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) may raise a defense as follows:

1) The false claim was made prior to September 30, 1996

False U.S. citizenship claims made before September 30, 1996, when the immigration laws changed, does not permanently disqualify you from obtaining a green card or immigrant visa.

If your false claim to U.S. citizenship was made to a private entity, such as an employer or a bank, prior to September 30, 1996, the lifetime bar does not normally apply.

False U.S. citizenship claims before this date must have been willfully made to a U.S. government official in connection with a visa application, a request for admission to the U.S,. or an attempt to obtain immigration benefits, for you to be deemed inadmissible or removable on this ground. (NOTE: You might still, however, need a waiver for the fraud or willful misrepresentation.)

2) The false claim was not for a “purpose or benefit”  under immigration law or any other federal or state law 

One could argue that the potential benefit is not directly linked to a false U.S. citizenship claim (i.e. the outcome would have been the same regardless of the person’s citizenship status).

One could also argue that the false U.S. citizenship claim was made to avoid a negative outcome, and not to obtain a benefit.

An example is lying about being a U.S. citizen to a police officer to avoid being reported to the immigration authorities (where the arrest would have been made despite citizenship status and where avoiding deportation is not a “benefit”).

3) The false claim was made by someone else 

False claims made by someone else on your behalf, when you were not aware of and did not participate in the claim, should not disqualify you from getting a green card or immigrant visa.

For example, you might have signed the I-9 form, but did not check the box indicating your immigration status or eligibility to work. Rather, the employer checked the box on your behalf without your knowledge (even though, by law, they are not supposed to do this).

4) The false claim was timely and voluntarily retracted

If you timely and voluntarily retract your false U.S. citizenship claim, you will probably not be found inadmissible or removable. For this defense to work, you would have to timely and voluntarily take back your false claim and correct the error before the lie is exposed or is about to be exposed. The retraction has to be in the same proceeding and not in a different proceeding, for example.

What would qualify as a timely retraction depends largely on the facts, but must be done at the first opportunity.

5) The false claim falls under a specific exception

There is a narrow exception to being deportable — due to a false claim to U.S. citizenship — if you were under age 18 when you made the false claim, you permanently resided in the U.S. (with a green card) before you turned 16, each of your natural or adopted parents were U.S. citizens or are U.S. citizens, and you reasonably believed you were a citizen when you made the claim.

6) The false claim referred to being a U.S. national, not a U.S. citizen

There is ambiguity in old versions of Form I-9 (prior to April 3, 2009), which combined a “citizen or national of the United States” into one box. In this situation, the person may argue that the I-9 doesn’t show clearly whether he claimed to be a citizen or national. Immigration law punishes false claims to U.S. citizenship, but not false claims to U.S. nationality.

In these cases, applicants must show they were claiming to be a non-U.S. citizen national as opposed to a U.S. citizen when they completed the I-9.  This inquiry is not necessary when an April 3, 2009, edition or later edition of the I-9 was used because these editions clearly distinguish between a “citizen of the United States” and “non-citizen national of the United States.”

[UPDATE, JUNE 2019] – Different Interpretations of the Law: Does It Matter if the False Claim was Not Intentionally or Knowingly Made? 

In prior guidance, immigration officers, immigration judges, and DHS counsels generally agreed the false U.S. citizenship claim must have been intentionally or knowingly made. Mental capacity and English language skills could be relevant to whether you intentionally or knowingly made a false claim.

But in Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 569 (BIA 2019), the Board of Immigration Appeals found the plain language of the statute, INA 237(a)(3)(D)(i), does not require an intent to falsely claim citizenship to trigger this ground of removability. The BIA noted the statute does not contain a “knowing” or “willful” requirement for false claims to citizenship. Following this decision, USCIS began to interpret this to mean the applicant need not intend to falsely claim citizenship to be found inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).

The U.S. Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual (version 03-27-2018), however, still contains a limited exception based on a December 6, 2014 opinion from the DHS Office of the General Counsel. The FAM states:

(1)  Only a knowingly false claim can support a charge that an individual is ineligible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).  The individual claiming not to know that the claim to citizenship was false has the burden of establishing this affirmative defense by the appropriate standard of proof (“clearly and beyond doubt”).

(2)  A separate affirmative defense is that the individual was (a) under the age of 18 at the time of the false citizenship claim; and (b) at that time lacked the capacity (i.e., the maturity and the judgment) to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of a false claim to citizenship.  The individual must establish this claim by the appropriate standard of proof (“clearly and beyond doubt”).

* * *

There is no immigrant visa waiver available under current law for an applicant who is ineligible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii). If you seek to immigrate to the United States, it is especially important to verify whether the bar was properly made. You should raise any potential defenses to prevent adverse consequences due to a false claim to U.S. citizenship.

For more information, read:

Why Lying About Being a U.S. Citizen Can Stop You from Becoming a Permanent Resident (and what you can do to overcome this obstacle)

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

Comments Off on Defenses to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) Inadmissibility (False Claim to U.S. Citizenship)

Posted in adjustment of status, citizenship, immigrant petition, immigrant visa, immigration fraud, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog, waiver

Tagged ,