Category Archives: success story

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

Posted on May 27, 2026 | Comments Off on 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

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

Posted in expedited removal, nonimmigrant visa, success story, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog, Videos, waiver

Tagged , , ,

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

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

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

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 Ten days after receiving our Motion to Reconsider the Inadmissibility Finding, the U.S. Consulate rescinded the (6)(C) refusal and then granted the visa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USCIS Approves Form I-485 Application for Permanent Residence

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

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

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

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

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

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

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

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

Tagged , ,

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

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

Within 5 months, the U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) vacated its Expedited Removal Order (ERO) and INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) inadmissibility finding against my client, upon receiving our Motion to Reconsider. The CBP agreed he should not have been charged as inadmissible under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (intended immigrant without proper immigrant visa) and barred for 5 years from the United States, pursuant to INA 212(a)(9)(A)(i).

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

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

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

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

Facts and Arguments Supporting Reconsideration of Inadmissibility Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

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

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

Tagged , , , ,

Form I-212 and I-192 Approvals for U.S. Visits Following Controlled Substance Trafficking Offense and Deportation with Aggravated Felony Conviction = A True Success Story

Posted on April 16, 2024 | Comments Off on Form I-212 and I-192 Approvals for U.S. Visits Following Controlled Substance Trafficking Offense and Deportation with Aggravated Felony Conviction = A True Success Story

Nine years after he was removed from the U.S., due to a serious drug offense, our client, a Canadian citizen, received a Consent to Reapply for Admission and 212(d)(3) waiver for temporary U.S. visits. He thought it was impossible for him to come back, until we explained what he needed to do.

In episode 15 of The Legal Immigrant, attorney Dyan Williams tells a true success story about a former green card holder who was removed from the United States, after he was convicted and completed his sentence for a controlled substance offense, which made him permanently inadmissible on four grounds:

1) INA 212(a)(2)(a)(i)(I) (crime involving moral turpitude)

2) INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) (controlled substance violation)

3) INA 212(a)(2)(C) (controlled substance trafficking)

4) INA 212(a)(9)(A)(ii) (removal order with aggravated felony conviction)

With two consultations and, eventually, representation from Dyan Williams Law, our client received Form I-212 (Consent to Reapply for Admission) and Form I-192 (212(d)(3) waiver) approvals to make temporary U.S. visits.

This is a true success story at Dyan Williams Law.

To hear more on this success story, click HERE for Episode 15 on The Legal Immigrant podcast or find it on Apple Podcasts.

To watch the YouTube video, click HERE.

To read the transcript, click HERE. 

# # #


The Legal Immigrant provides general information only from Dyan Williams Law. It is based on law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice. Each case is different. Even cases that seem similar can have different outcomes. 

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT



Comments Off on Form I-212 and I-192 Approvals for U.S. Visits Following Controlled Substance Trafficking Offense and Deportation with Aggravated Felony Conviction = A True Success Story

Posted in immigration consequences of criminal convictions, success story, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog, waiver

I-601 Waiver + Immigrant Visa = A True Success Story

Posted on December 15, 2021 | Comments Off on I-601 Waiver + Immigrant Visa = A True Success Story

Five years after being found inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), our client finally received her Immigrant Visa to join her U.S. citizen spouse in the United States. Consistent with normal processing time, USCIS took 10 months to approve her Form I-601 application for waiver of inadmissibility, which we prepared and filed on her behalf.

But due to the U.S. Consulate’s administrative delays and a Presidential Proclamation suspending entries from the client’s home country, it took almost three more years for her to get the visa.

In episode 13 of The Legal Immigrant, you will learn:

1) The U.S. immigration problem when you have a permanent bar under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), i.e., fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact to obtain a U.S. immigration benefit. 

2) The two main solutions to receive an Immigrant Visa or green card (permanent residence) when you have a section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) inadmissibility bar:

a) A motion to reconsider requires you to have a factual basis, legal ground, and procedural means to get the bar removed.

b) Form I-601 waiver application under INA 212(i) requires you to have a “qualifying relative” who will face “extreme hardship” if you do not immigrate to the United States. 

  • A qualifying relative is the U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent of the applicant. 
  • Extreme hardship must result to the qualifying relative if that person stays in the U.S. without the applicant or relocates to another country to be with the applicant. 

3) The type of documentary evidence and legal argument that are required to receive an I-601 waiver.  This includes medical records on any chronic medical conditions the U.S. citizen spouse (or other qualifying relative) suffers, and reports on lack of medical resources in the visa applicant’s home country. 

4) The outcome of a true success story, which included more obstacles and long delays after the I-601 was approved. Due to the U.S. Consulate’s 221(g) administrative processing and a 212(f) Presidential Proclamation suspending entries from certain countries, it took almost three more years for the applicant to get the Immigrant Visa.

The couple remained committed to one another despite their separate residences and long-distance relationship. Our client finally became a permanent resident after she was initially refused the visa under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

This is a true success story at Dyan Williams Law.

To hear more on the I-601 Waiver + Immigrant Visa success story, click HERE for Episode 13 on The Legal Immigrant podcast or find it on Apple Podcasts or Google Podcasts. 

To watch the YouTube video, click HERE.  

To read the transcript, click HERE. 

The Legal Immigrant provides general information only from Dyan Williams Law. Do not consider it as legal advice. Each case is different. Even cases that seem similar can have different outcomes. 

Have you been charged with fraud or misrepresentation? If you’re applying for an immigrant visa or permanent residence and have this lifetime bar, you need an I-601 waiver. Otherwise, if the bar was made in error, you might be able to get it removed through a motion to reconsider.

To receive advice on fraud or misrepresentation issues, you may submit an email to info@dyanwilliamslaw.com or online message at www.dyanwilliamslaw.com.

Dyan Williams, Esq. 

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

Comments Off on I-601 Waiver + Immigrant Visa = A True Success Story

Posted in adjustment of status, good moral character, green card, immigrant petition, immigrant visa, immigration fraud, INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), marriage fraud, success story, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog, Videos, waiver, willful misrepresentation