Within 16 days of my client’s visa interview, the U.S. Embassy granted him a J-1 exchange visitor visa after it had denied his prior application under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)(crime-related bar). In the previous visa refusal, the Embassy found him to be permanently inadmissible because he was charged with two offenses, forgery and larceny, which are normally considered Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT).
Based on the Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Determination that I prepared for the client, the Embassy lifted the lifetime bar and issued the visa without requiring a 212(d)(3) waiver of inadmissibility.
Under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), any non-U.S. citizen convicted of, or who admits committing acts that constitute the elements of a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense), is inadmissible. For the CIMT bar to apply, an actual conviction is not required when the person explicitly admits to committing all elements of the offense, under oath, including to a U.S. consular officer or customs officer during an interview.
A CIMT involves engaging in morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong conduct with willful, reckless, or malicious intent. Examples are crimes against a person (aggravated battery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, statutory rape); crimes against property (shoplifting, theft, fraud, forgery, robbery); sexual and family crimes (e.g. child abuse, aggravated domestic assault); and crimes against the government (e.g. bribery, counterfeiting, willful tax evasion).
The petty offense exception applies only if the person committed just one CIMT ever, the CIMT has a potential sentence of one year or less, and a sentence of six months or less was imposed (if the person was convicted of the offense).
The client contacted me to evaluate his problem and recommend a solution after he had been denied the J-1 visa due to crime-related grounds. During the consultation, I learned that while he had been arrested and charged with two offenses (forgery and larceny) for one single incident, he was not convicted of either.
The police report, however, contained the client’s written Voluntary Statement admitting he had made a photocopy of his metro-train pass and presented the fake ticket to the train conductor to save money when he was low on cash. Meanwhile, he gave his real train pass to his travel companion to use.
In the legal memorandum supporting the Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Finding, I emphasized that my client was never convicted of forgery or larceny. The charges were dismissed after he was placed in an alternative rehabilitation program, which did not require him to enter a guilty plea. I also argued that his Voluntary Statement in the police report did not amount to a legally valid admission to committing a CIMT. Thus, the Embassy’s crime-related inadmissibility finding was made in error.
Although my client qualified for the 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver of inadmissibility, the U.S. Customs & Border Protection, Admissibility Review Office normally takes several months to process these requests – even after the Embassy makes a favorable recommendation. The waiver is also valid for a limited period (currently, up to 60 months).
Furthermore, the crime-related bar would remain if left unchallenged. If he were to seek permanent residence in the future, he would require a Form I-601/INA 212(i) immigrant waiver as long as the crime-related bar existed. This immigrant waiver of inadmissibility has much stricter eligibility criteria and higher evidentiary standards.
My client agreed that the Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Determination was the primary solution and the 212(d)(3) waiver was the alternative remedy. Within one month of accepting his request for representation, I prepared the Motion with a legal memorandum and documentary evidence demonstrating the CIMT bar did not apply or, at the very least, the 212(d)(3) waiver should be granted.
When my client appeared for his visa interview, the consular officer refused to accept the legal memorandum and accompanying exhibits. Instead, she took only two documents showing the charges had been dismissed. The problem was the Embassy had the same or similar information when it denied the prior J-1 visa application. My client was worried the Embassy would deny the new visa request because it had received no new information since the last denial.
To fully explain the situation, I forwarded the legal memorandum and exhibits to the Embassy in a follow-up email correspondence. I pointed out that my client has no criminal convictions, did not enter any guilty plea, and did not make any legally valid admissions to committing a CIMT. I also noted that even if his Voluntary Statement to the police counted as a formal admission (which was not the case), the most he admitted to was forgery (not larceny) and he would thus, at a minimum, qualify for the petty offense exception to the CIMT bar.
Eleven (11) days after I submitted the follow-up correspondence, including the legal memorandum and exhibits, to the Embassy, the J-1 visa was issued to my client. This allowed him to return to the U.S. and timely begin his J-1 exchange visitor program.
While my client was stuck overseas, waiting for his J-1 visa problem to be fixed, he and his wife communicated with me through emails and video calls. Despite being in separate countries, we formed a strong attorney-client relationship and effective partnership that resulted in 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.
Photo by: Free-Photos
In September 2018, the U.S. Embassy issued an H-1B temporary worker visa to my client after previously finding he is permanently inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), i.e. willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain U.S. immigration benefits. At the visa interview, he relied on my recommendations to explain why the misrepresentation bar does not apply to him.
Within 50 days of attending his visa interview at the U.S. Embassy, my client was cleared of the INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) inadmissibility charge and received his H-1B visa to resume his employment in the United States. The Embassy had previously found that he willfully misrepresented material fact when he failed to disclose he had been arrested and charged with Domestic Violence on his prior Form DS-160, nonimmigrant visa application, and during the visa interview.
To visit the United States, a visa-exempt Canadian citizen needed a Form I-212 approval because he was previously issued a removal order by an Immigration Judge and thus became subject to a 10-year bar to reentry under INA section 212(a)(9)(A)(ii). He also required a 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver due to a 20-year-old conviction, for which he was found inadmissible under INA sections 212(a)(2)(A) (i)(II)(controlled substance violation) and 212(a)(2)(C)(i)(illicit trafficker in controlled substance).
