Category Archives: success story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a true success story.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

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

###

This article provides general information only. It is based on law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each legal case is different and case examples do not constitute a prediction or guarantee of success or failure in any other case. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a true success story.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

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

###

This article provides general information only. It is based on law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each case is different and case examples do not constitute a prediction or guarantee of success or failure in any other case. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

U.S. Consulate Lifts INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Bar and Grants Immigrant Visa: A True Success Story

Within 21 days of receiving our Request for Supervisory Review of Immigrant Visa Refusal and Renewed Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Finding under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), the U.S. Consulate removed the lifetime bar and instructed our client to continue the immigrant visa process. Ultimately, he received his Immigrant Visa after the new police certificate and updated proof of his U.S. citizen petitioner’s U.S. domicile and financial support were provided. Because the U.S. Consulate agreed to lift the fraud charge, no Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Inadmissibility, was required.

Born stateless, the applicant used to hold a refugee travel document that contained a visitor visa when he was a child. After he acquired citizenship in a country where he was not born, the applicant used the new passport to obtain a second visitor visa and traveled to the United States for a temporary recreational stay.

Despite being married to a U.S. citizen, he complied with the terms of his visitor visa and did not overstay the authorized period or apply for a marriage-based green card within the United States. Based on the approved Form I-130 immigrant petition filed by his U.S. citizen wife, he sought to become a permanent resident through an Immigrant Visa application at the U.S. Consulate overseas.

At the initial Immigrant Visa interview, the applicant presented his passport for visa stamping. About two months later, the U.S. Consulate conducted a re-interview in which it asked about the process he used to acquire the citizenship and obtain the passport. He explained the legal channels he used to get both. Nonetheless, the U.S. Consulate charged him with section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)(fraud/willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain a U.S. immigration benefit), upon noting it was unable to verify his acquired citizenship or the authenticity of the passport when it contacted the government authorities.

The U.S. Consulate instructed him to file a Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Inadmissibility, to be excused from the inadmissibility charge. A section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding prohibits applicants from receiving an Immigrant Visa without first getting an I-601 approval from USCIS.

Two months after the visa refusal, the applicant contacted me for the first time to discuss his options. In our Skype (video) consultation, I explained that one solution was to file a Form I-601 application, as the U.S. Consulate instructed. To receive the waiver, he would need to prove the extreme hardships his U.S. citizen wife would suffer if he is denied entry to the United States as a permanent resident. I noted there is never any guarantee the waiver will be granted due to the high standard of proof and the discretion involved in the decision-making.

I further pointed out that if he did not commit fraud or willfully misrepresent material facts to gain the prior B1/B2 visitor visa, the Immigrant Visa, or any other U.S. immigration benefit, he could file a Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Finding with the U.S. Consulate. If such a motion is granted and the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar is lifted, the I-601 waiver is not required for the visa to be issued.

The client opted to go with the request to reconsider the inadmissibility charge. After we entered into a representation agreement, I counseled him on the information and documents he needed to present to show he did not engage in fraud or willfully misrepresent material facts to receive any U.S. immigration benefit.

To support the Motion to Reconsider, I prepared a legal memorandum describing how the applicant used proper channels to obtain the passport and why the submission of this passport to the U.S. Consulate was actually immaterial to his eligibility for the Immigrant Visa, as well as the prior visitor visas he received.

Five days after receiving the Motion to Reconsider, the U.S. Consulate issued a response stating the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar would remain and the applicant needed to file for an I-601 waiver. The Consulate noted the applicant had no concrete evidence to support his explanation on how he acquired the citizenship. The Consulate added that during its checks with the government authorities, it was determined beyond reasonable doubt the applicant misrepresented his case and deliberately provided false information and documents to receive an immigration benefit. They added he did not rescind his false statements when given the opportunity to do so.

In the Request for Supervisory Review and Renewed Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Finding, I stressed the important points the U.S. Consulate missed when it issued the response affirming the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge.

In reply to this Request and Renewed Motion, the U.S. Consulate sent a response 21 days later stating the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge had been lifted. Five months later — following the completion of administrative processing — my client received the Immigrant Visa to join his wife in the United States, without needing to file for and obtain an I-601 waiver.

This is a true success story.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

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

###

This article provides general information only. It is based on law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each case is different and case examples do not constitute a prediction or guarantee of success or failure in any other case. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

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

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

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

Explanatory Response to Request for Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thorough Preparation for I-751 Interview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a true success story.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

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

###

This article provides general information only. It is based on law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each case is different and case examples do not constitute a prediction or guarantee of success or failure in any other case. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

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

A USCIS Field Office in Ohio approved our client’s Form I-751 petition with request for waiver of joint filing requirement, despite her not living with the U.S. citizen (who had petitioned for her CR1 spousal immigrant visa) after she arrived in the United States as a conditional resident.

Her detailed affidavit describing the premarital courtship, married life abroad, and reasons the relationship ended in divorce was key to getting a timely approval. Her being fully prepared for the I-751 interview was another driving factor. 

Divorce and No Joint Residence with U.S. Citizen Petitioner After CR1 Spousal Immigrant Visa was Granted

The couple met in the United States while the client was in lawful, nonimmigrant status. At the end of her stay, they departed to her home country, where they married and lived together for a few months. The U.S. citizen filed an I-130 petition for her, but moved back to the United States before the immigrant visa process was completed.

Their relationship was rocky from the start. Marriage counseling and other good-faith efforts to resolve their marital problems did not help. The U.S. citizen petitioner, however, did not withdraw the I-130 or his I-864 affidavit of financial support.

At the CR1 spousal immigrant visa interview, the U.S. consular officer asked very few questions and granted the application. The client became a conditional resident upon her arrival in the United States. She received a conditional green card set to expire within 2 years because her immigrant status was based on a marriage that was less than two years old.

A few weeks after she landed in the United States, she contacted the U.S. citizen petitioner to let him know she was in the country. He was not interested in maintaining their marriage and asked for a divorce. They went their separate ways when he made it clear the relationship was over.

After three years of being legally married to the U.S. citizen and one year following the grant of her conditional residence, she received the court order terminating the marriage.

Individual Form I-751 Petition with Request for Waiver of Joint Filing Requirement

The client contacted me for the first time after she arrived in the United States as a conditional resident and before the divorce occurred. In the consultation, I explained that to get the conditions removed and maintain lawful permanent residence, she normally needed to file a joint I-751 petition with the spouse before the two-year card expires, and no earlier than 90 days before the expiration.

I noted there are only three types of waivers (exceptions) to the joint filing requirement. We determined the most appropriate option was to file for the waiver based on divorce (good faith/divorce waiver), after the divorce proceeding was completed.

I counseled her to start gathering evidence of their married life, including documents showing joint residence abroad, photographs of the two of them together, text messages and emails they exchanged with each other, third-party declarations attesting to the good faith nature of their marriage, a supporting affidavit from the U.S. citizen petitioner, and her own affidavit describing in detail their relationship history and the reasons for the divorce.

Following the divorce, the client contacted me again for full representation in her Form I-751 petition with request for waiver of joint filing requirement. We submitted the petition with the documentary evidence she had collected based on my advice. I included a legal memorandum explaining how she qualified for the I-751 waiver, including the concrete steps she took to salvage a marriage that was beyond repair.

Removal of Conditions on Permanent Residence Following Attorney Appearance at Out-of-State I-751 Interview

Although Dyan Williams Law PLLC is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, I represent clients from all across the United States and around the world in U.S. immigration matters, which is governed by federal laws, regulations and policies.  I-751 interviews are scheduled at the USCIS Field Office with jurisdiction over the residence of the applicant who, in this case, is in Ohio. 

The day before the I-751 interview, I flew out to Ohio to prepare the client for possible questions from the USCIS officer and address concerns she had about the pending petition. 

When we appeared for the I-751 interview, the USCIS officer asked questions about when and how the couple met, their life together abroad, and the circumstances that led to the divorce.

Because the officer had reviewed the client’s detailed affidavit prior to the interview, she already had a good understanding of the relationship history. The officer also took note of the U.S. citizen petitioner’s affidavit confirming the marriage was based on love and intent to build a life together, but ultimately he no longer wanted to be in the relationship. 

At the end of the interview, the USCIS officer informed us she had no issues with the I-751 petition. In essence, she determined the marriage was entered into in good faith, even though it did not last and  there was no joint residence after the CR1 immigrant visa was granted.

The USCIS officer handed us a Notice of Interview Results stating, “Your case is being held for review. At this time, USCIS does not require any further information or documents from you…” She added that we would receive, in the mail, a decision or a request for evidence if more information or documents was needed. 

Within a week, we received the USCIS Field Office’s Notice of Removal of Conditional Basis of Lawful Permanent Resident stating the (10-year) green card would be mailed and the request for removal of conditions on permanent residence has been approved. The USCIS National Benefits Center in Lee’s Summit, Missouri also issued the official Form I-797C, Notice of Action approving the I-751 petition. The applicant received her 10-year green card directly from USCIS. 

Divorce from the U.S. Citizen Petitioner and Lack of Joint Residence During Marriage Make it More Difficult to Get an I-751 Approval

A combination of factors made it possible for the applicant to get an I-751 approval even though she divorced the U.S. citizen petitioner and did not live with him after she arrived in the United States on the CR1 visa. Without proper counselling, an I-751 applicant in this type of situation is highly likely to get a denial and end up in removal proceedings before the Immigration Court.  

The I-751 applicant made a wise decision to discuss her options with skilled counsel prior to getting divorced and before her conditional residence expired. My guidance helped her to know when to initiate divorce proceedings, what documentary evidence to gather, and how to file for removal of conditions on residence after divorce. 

The legal memorandum submitted with the I-751 petition and counsel’s preparation for and appearance at the interview were also significant. If the applicant had not submitted her detailed affidavit with an explanation letter from counsel in support of the I-751 petition, and had no counsel present at the interview, the questions from the USCIS officer would have likely been a lot tougher. 

The applicant had the backup option of filing for a green card based on her second marriage to another U.S. citizen. This current marriage is solid and includes joint residence throughout the entire marital relationship. But I explained that a new I-130 petition and green card or immigrant visa application only had to be filed if her I-751 petition was denied and her permanent residence was terminated. 

Instead of needing to start from scratch, she received an I-751 approval and had the conditions on her permanent residence removed. She remains a lawful permanent resident who will meet the continuous residence requirement for naturalization (U.S. citizenship) within 5 years of when she was initially granted the (2-year) green card. 

This is a true success story. 

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

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

###

This article provides general information only. It is based on law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each case is different and case examples do not constitute a prediction or guarantee of success or failure in any other case. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

 

Continue reading