Category Archives: Videos

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 , , ,

USCIS Green Card Memo: Should You File for I-485 Adjustment of Status?

Posted on May 26, 2026 | Comments Off on USCIS Green Card Memo: Should You File for I-485 Adjustment of Status?

Form I-485, Adjustment of Status is for eligible applicants who are already in the United States and are seeking to obtain a green card. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, issued on May 21, 2026, instructs USCIS officers to consider adjustment of status an “extraordinary” relief. This means USCIS may deny adjustment applications, as a matter of discretion, if it determines the applicant should instead apply for an Immigrant Visa at the U.S. Embassy/Consulate abroad.

The policy does not change the eligibility requirements to obtain a green card through the Form I-485 application process. Rather, it emphasizes that adjustment to permanent residence within the United States is a discretionary benefit, instead of an entitlement or normal path to receiving a green card.

USCIS officers are expected to more carefully consider whether a Form I-485 applicant deserves approval, based on the totality of circumstances and the best interest of the United States. The Policy Memo directs USCIS officers to apply higher discretionary scrutiny in weighing the positive versus the negative factors. It notes that unless Form I-485 applicants have unusual or outstanding equities, USCIS may not permit them to bypass the Immigrant Visa application process.

The Policy Memo states that with limited exceptions, the statutory scheme suggests that Congress expects paroled and nonimmigrant applicants to depart for Immigrant Visa processing, rather than apply for adjustment of status. It adds that an attempt to avoid the consular immigrant visa process is usually accompanied by violations of U.S. immigration laws. And these negative factors must be offset by the showing of unusual or even outstanding equities.

New applicants or applicants with pending cases should prepare to show favorable factors to warrant an approval, under the totality of the circumstances. They should also address how any negative factors are not enough to support a denial. Information and documents may be submitted with the Form I-485 application or in response to a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny from USCIS.

Positive Factors that USCIS Considers

In deciding whether to approve the Form I-485 application, on discretionary grounds, USCIS considers positive factors. Examples are:

  • Strong family ties, such as a bona fide marriage to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
  • Hardship to the applicant or close relatives if the adjustment application is denied.
  • Service in the U.S. armed forces.
  • Long authorized stay and maintenance of valid nonimmigrant status, such as H-1B and L-1.
  • Property, investment, or business ties in the United States, especially when they add to the nation’s economic interests.
  • Education, skills and training that are highly beneficial and are relevant to the applicant’s current or prospective employment.
  • Lack of a criminal record.
  • Compliance with tax laws.
  • Voluntary community service to society.

Negative Factors that USCIS Considers

In determining whether to deny the application, as a matter of discretion, USCIS considers negative factors, such as:

  • Absence of close family and community ties in the United States.
  • Violating the terms of parole or temporary status like F-1 student or B-1/B-2 visitor, by working without authorization, overstaying the authorized period or switching quickly to another status.
  • Fraud or false testimony in dealings with USCIS or any other government agency.
  • Entering a sham marriage to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident for the purpose of obtaining U.S. immigration benefits.
  • Criminal history, especially when it involves serious crimes, multiple offenses, or recent violations.
  • Failure to pay taxes owed or child support.
  • Public safety or national interest concerns, such as applicants who have endorsed or promoted anti-American views or views of a terrorist group on social media.

Although the shift in policy will affect a wide range of applicants, it is likely to have NO or LESS of an impact on:

  • K-1 fiance nonimmigrants who enter the U.S. specifically to marry a U.S. citizen and then apply for a marriage-based green card, plus their K-2 minor children.
  • Immediate relatives of a U.S. citizen because they have statutory exemptions for certain status violations, like failing to maintain lawful status or overstaying the authorized period. (An Immediate Relative is a U.S. citizen’s spouse; a U.S. citizen’s unmarried child under 21; or a U.S. citizen’s parent – if the citizen is age 21 or older).
  • H-1B and L-1 nonimmigrants who are allowed to have dual intent, plus their H-4 and L-2 spouse and minor children.
  • O-1, TN, E-2, and E-3 visa holders who are maintaining continuous lawful status through authorized employment in the U.S.
  • Refugees and asylees who file for adjustment of status under INA 209(c), not 245(a).
  • Humanitarian-based T and U visa applicants.
  • VAWA-based applicants.
  • Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJs).

Shortly after the Policy Memo went into effect, USCIS began issuing Requests for Evidence to certain Form I-485 applicants, which asks the following:

1. Why did you apply for Adjustment of Status instead of go through consular processing?

2. Are there any factors that prevent you from applying through consular processing?

3. Why did you not return to your home country when your authorized period of stay expired and you became out of status?

4. Do you have any family still living in your home country?

USCIS will issue an RFE when the evidence or information submitted with the application is not enough for them to make a decision. It is not a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), which is when USCIS gives you one last opportunity to respond with additional evidence or information after finding that a denial is likely.

Options if USCIS Denies Your Form I-485 Application

When USCIS denies a benefit request, it must issue a written denial notice explaining the specific reasons for the decision. If the denial is based on an unfavorable exercise of discretion, the denial notice must describe the positive and negative factors considered, along with an explanation of why the negative factors outweigh the positive factors.

If USCIS denies your Form I-485 application as a matter of discretion, but you otherwise meet the eligibility requirements to obtain a green card, you have four main options:

Submit a Motion to Reconsider or Reopen to USCIS. This involves timely filing the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion with the appropriate USCIS office, explaining how USCIS made the wrong decision or requesting USCIS consider new and material evidence that was unavailable in the prior application.

File a new Form I-485 Application with USCIS. This must include new, material information and documents demonstrating extraordinary circumstances to obtain the “extraordinary” relief of adjustment of status.

Apply for an Immigrant Visa through consular processing. This requires you to depart the United States, submit the Form DS-260 Immigrant Visa application and other required documents to the U.S. Department of State, and attend a scheduled visa interview at the U.S. Embassy/Consulate. You will need to obtain a Form I-601 or I-601A waiver if you are subject to being found inadmissible upon departure from the United States, due to accrual of unlawful presence.

Unlawful presence begins on day one of when you remain in the U.S. beyond your authorized period, if you are age 18 or older, and have no change or extension of status application pending with USCIS. Accruing more than 180 days to less than one year of unlawful presence creates a 3-year bar to re-entry under INA 212(a)(9)(B). The bar is 10 years if the unlawful presence lasted one year or more.

Remain in the U.S. without lawful status and wait to receive a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) in removal proceedings before the Immigration Court from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. You may present the Form I-485 application as a defense to removal, assuming you are statutorily eligible for this relief, but USCIS denied it as a matter of discretion.

In some cases, pursuing Form I-485 adjustment in removal proceedings might be less risky than consular processing, where you could be stuck abroad due to the unlawful presence bar or other inadmissibility issues, administrative delays, and U.S. travel bans preventing Immigrant Visa grants. But if the Immigration Court denies your I-485 application, you could end up with a Removal Order, instead of a Voluntary Departure grant. This would then make you inadmissible for 10 years under INA 212(a)(9)(A)(ii). You would need an approved Form I-212, Application for Consent to Reapply for Admission, to receive the Immigrant Visa abroad before this 10-year bar expires.

Get proper legal advice to help you choose your best option if your I-485 is denied.

Congress passed laws to make adjustment of status available to Immediate Relatives of U.S. citizens and other eligible applicants. Policies are guidelines on how to apply the laws. They are more flexible and temporary and can be changed or updated more easily. Whether the USCIS Policy Memo will stand up against federal court litigation or other challenges is uncertain. There could be more guidelines on how it affects different categories of applicants on a case-by-case basis.

Although the USCIS Policy Memo discourages adjustment of status, eligible Form I-485 applicants are not forbidden from applying for it when the law does not prohibit them from doing so.

Consult an experienced U.S. immigration attorney to help you (1) assess your eligibility for Form I-485, adjustment of status, (2) demonstrate the positive factors warrant a favorable exercise of discretion, and (3) supplement your pending Form I-485 application or strengthen a new application.

For more information on the Form I-485 adjustment process, see:

Who is Eligible (and Not Eligible) for Adjustment to Permanent Resident Status?

Adjusting to Permanent Resident Status Under INA 245(a): Bars, Exceptions and Exemptions

A Key Requirement for I-485 Adjustment to Permanent Resident Status: Inspection and Admission OR Inspection and Parole

When do you need an I-601 waiver due to unlawful presence (and how do you get it)?

When do you need an I-212 Waiver (and how do you get it)?

The current USCIS Policy Manual – shown below – may be updated after the release of the Policy Memo titled, Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, and an Extraordinary Relief that Permits Applicants to Dispense with the Ordinary
Consular Visa Process.

USCIS Policy Manual – Chapter 10 – Legal Analysis and Use of Discretion – as of May 26, 2026Download

# # #

USCIS Policy Manual – Chapter 8- Discretionary Analysis – as of May 26, 2026Download

# # # 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 USCIS Green Card Memo: Should You File for I-485 Adjustment of Status?

Posted in adjustment of status, bona fide marriage, green card, green card, I-485, immigrant petition, immigrant visa, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog, Videos

Tagged , , , , ,

Why Do You Really Want to Get More Done?

Posted on December 31, 2025 | Comments Off on Why Do You Really Want to Get More Done?

It’s been months since I posted on The Incrementalist YouTube channel or podcast. In 2025, I focused on other areas of life that changed how I view personal productivity – not so much around the how, but more about the why.

To know whether to continue, start or stop any project, you must know the WHY before the HOW.

I’ve reflected on how I can apply what I’ve learned to The Incrementalist, which is still about making big
changes in small steps. You might notice some differences in episodes to come. Or I might just start a new channel. If you’ve been following the show, I hope you will stick around. If you’re new, welcome and stay a while.

And be sure to check out my online course, The Busyness Trap: Escape Overload and Focus on What
Matters, at https://dyan-williams.thinkific.com/courses/busyness-trap.

Module 2 is now up. It contains 16 minutes of 5 video lessons:

1) What is the Busyness Trap?

2) How Do You Know You’re in the Busyness Trap?

3) The Psychology of Busyness

4) The Culture of Busyness

5) The Business of Busyness

The enrollment fee could go up as more modules are added incrementally. For updates on the course, subscribe to the e-newsletter or to The Incrementalist YouTube channel or podcast.

For a free preview of Module 2, Lesson 2, listen to the podcast or watch the video.

 # # #

Dyan Williams is a solo lawyer who practices U.S. immigration law and legal ethics at Dyan Williams Law PLLC. She is also a productivity coach who helps busy professionals and business owners reduce overwhelm, turn their ideas into action, and focus on what matters. She is the author of The Incrementalist: A Simple Productivity System to Create Big Results in Small Steps.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Comments Off on Why Do You Really Want to Get More Done?

Posted in competence, diligence, lawyer well-being, The Productive Lawyer - Productivity + Lawyer Wellbeing Blog, Videos

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 , ,

Why the Law of Attraction is Unproductive and (Even) Harmful

Posted on April 17, 2025 | Comments Off on Why the Law of Attraction is Unproductive and (Even) Harmful

The Law of Attraction says your thoughts and feelings manifest your reality; they contain vibrations and frequencies that create tangible outcomes or visible results. It’s pseudoscience that makes vague references to neurology, metaphysics and quantum mechanics.

The Law of Attraction is a New Thought or New Age concept. The idea is that whatever you desire, the universe will provide. The 3 steps of manifestation are to ask, belief and receive. There is no action step.

When you’re in the realm of possibility, action typically beats inaction. You could break down the challenge to make the action steps easier, struggle less, and apply the effort that you can reasonably manage. The incrementalist approach is more doable than trying to harness your mind power to manifest desired outcomes.

In episode 71 of The Incrementalist, you will learn 7 reasons why the Law of Attraction is unproductive and even harmful.

To read the transcript of this episode, go here.

To listen to the podcast, click here.

Watch the video our YouTube channel, The Incrementalist – A Productivity Show. And subscribe to the show to keep making big changes in small steps.

P.S. I’m making an online course titled The Busyness Trap: Escape Overload and Focus on What Matters. To get updates on the course launch and registration process, subscribe to my e-newsletter or The Incrementalist YouTube channel or podcast.

# # #

Dyan Williams is a productivity coach who helps busy professionals and business owners reduce overwhelm, turn their ideas into action, and focus on what matters. She is also a solo lawyer who practices U.S. immigration law and legal ethics at Dyan Williams Law PLLC. She is the author of The Incrementalist: A Simple Productivity System to Create Big Results in Small Steps.

CONTACT          SUBSCRIBE 

Comments Off on Why the Law of Attraction is Unproductive and (Even) Harmful

Posted in communication, competence, diligence, lawyer well-being, The Productive Lawyer - Productivity + Lawyer Wellbeing Blog, Videos