Tag Archives: Consent to Reapply for Admission

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) in San Francisco, CA 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position prior to departing the U.S. The Form I-797A, Approval Notice for the H-1B petition was still valid and was not withdrawn by the petitioner or revoked by USCIS.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 changeDo not consider it as legal advice. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Expedited Removal: When Does it Apply and What Are the Consequences?

You may face expedited removal from the U.S. if the Customs & Border Protection (CBP) finds you inadmissible and denies your entry, usually at an airport, seaport, or land border checkpoint. The Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, requires you leave the U.S. immediately and brings serious consequences, such as a visa cancellation with prejudice and minimum 5-year bar to reentry.

On What Grounds May Expedited Removal Be Ordered?

CBP officers must verify whether you are admissible to the U.S. before they let you into the U.S. The CBP not only checks your travel documents, but may also interview you extensively to confirm the true purpose of your trip. The CBP may also check its records to determine whether you have a criminal history, immigration violation or other grounds that make you inadmissible.

Your mere possession of a travel document that is valid on its face does not guarantee your entry into the U.S. Section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) permits the CBP to issue an expedited removal order if it finds you are inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7). The inadmissibility grounds for an expedited removal order are:

1. Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) (Misrepresentation), i.e. by fraud or wilful misrepresentation of a material fact, you seek to procure (or have sought to procure or have procured) a visa, other documentation,  admission into the U.S. or other immigration benefit.

2. Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) (False Claim to U.S. Citizenship), i.e. you falsely represent or have falsely represented yourself to be a U.S. citizen for any purpose or benefit under immigration law or federal or state law.

3. Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), (Immigrant Without Proper Visa or Travel Document), i.e. you are an immigrant who, at the time of application for admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry document required by immigration law, and a valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality if such document is required by the regulations.

4. Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(II) (Immigrant With Improperly Issued Visa), i.e. you are an immigrant who, at the time of application for admission, has a visa that was not issued in compliance with immigration law.

5. Section 212(a)(7)(B)(i)(I) (Nonimmigrant Without Valid Passport), i.e. you are a nonimmigrant who, at the time of application for admission, is not in possession of a passport valid for a minimum of six months from the date of the expiration of your period of admission or period of authorized stay.

6. Section 212(a)(7)(B)(i)(II)(Nonimmigrant Without Proper Visa or Travel Document), i.e. you are a nonimmigrant, who at the time of application for admission, does not have a valid nonimmigrant visa or border crossing identification card.

Who is Subject to Expedited Removal? 

Expedited removal applies to certain groups or classes, including:

1. Arriving aliens at designated port of entry (e.g. airport, seaport, or land border crossing)

As of April 1, 1997, all “arriving aliens” who seek admission to the U.S. or transit through the U.S. at a designated port of entry may be issued an expedited removal order upon inspection, if CBP finds they are inadmissible under sections 212(a)(6)(C) and/or 212(a)(7).

Currently, expedited removal does not apply to Cuban nationals who arrive at a U.S. port of entry by aircraft.

The expedited removal process may not be used at pre-clearance or pre-inspection units. If the CBP wishes to proceed with expedited removal, it must defer action until the vessel (e.g. aircraft) has arrived in the U.S.

2. Certain other aliens who are already in the U.S. 

Under the April 1, 1997 law, expedited removal also applies to noncitizens who have not been admitted or paroled into the U.S. following inspection by an immigration officer at a designated port of entry, and who have not been physically present in the U.S. continuously for the 2-year period prior to the date of determination of inadmissibility.

3. Foreign nationals arriving by sea, but not at designated port of entry

As of November 2002, foreign nationals who arrive in the U.S. by sea, and not at a designated port of entry, or who are intercepted at sea and brought to the U.S., may be subject to expedited removal if they were not admitted or paroled into the U.S. and have not been continuously present in the U.S. for at least two years.

Currently, expedited removal does not apply to Cuban nationals, crewmen or stowaways. [UPDATE: On January 12, 2017, the Obama Administration announced the U.S. is eliminating this exemption. Expedited removal proceedings may now be initiated against Cubans.]

4. Undocumented immigrants within 100 miles of a U.S. border 

As of August 2004, expedited removal may apply to noncitizens who are encountered within 100 miles of any U.S. land or sea border and who entered the U.S. without inspection less than 14 days before the time they are encountered.

As a matter of discretion, CBP generally applies such expedited removals against third-country nationals not from Mexico or Canada, or Mexican or Canadian nationals with criminal histories or immigration violations.

What are the Consequences of an Expedited Removal Order?

By itself, an expedited removal order carries a 5-year to reentering the U.S., pursuant to INA 212(a)(9)(A)(i). This means you may not obtain an immigrant visa or nonimmigrant visa, or otherwise enter the U.S. for a minimum of 5 years from the date of expedited removal.

In addition, if you are found inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) (fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain immigration benefit), you are barred from the U.S. for a lifetime.

An inadmissibility finding under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(false claim to U.S. citizenship) also triggers a lifetime ban.

Avoid an Expedited Removal Order or Develop a Strong Basis to Challenge or Overcome It

You have very limited due process rights in an expedited removal proceeding before the CBP, unlike in a regular removal proceeding before the Immigration Court. You have no right to counsel during primary inspection, secondary inspection, or at any other time you request admission to the U.S.

Your best strategy is to avoid an expedited removal order whenever possible. At the very least, work to develop a strong factual record to later challenge it through a request for review with the CBP or to support a Form I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States after Deportation or RemovalI-601 immigrant waiver under section 212(i), when seeking reentry as an immigrant, or a nonimmigrant waiver under section 212(d)(3), when seeking reentry as a nonimmigrant.

What are the Remedies for Overcoming an Expedited Removal Order?

Generally, you should aim to file a motion to reconsider or reopen the Expedited Removal Order and inadmissibility finding with CBP within 30 days from the date of the expedited removal order. The reason is that while there is no formal process for challenging CBP’s decision, lawyers often cite to 8 CFR 103.5, which includes the 30-day timeframe. A late filing does not strictly prohibit a review, but it would involve less emphasis on the federal regulation.

Otherwise, to be excused from the 5-year bar, you may file a Request for Consent to Reapply for Admission or Form I-212 application at any time, in connection with a nonimmigrant visa or immigrant visa application. The same goes for I-601 immigrant waiver or 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver requests to overcome a fraud or willful misrepresentation finding under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). While persons charged with (6)(C)(ii) (false claim to U.S. citizenship) may apply for a nonimmigrant waiver, there is no immigrant waiver for this inadmissibility ground.

If you are issued an expedited removal order, you should timely consult an experienced immigration attorney to discuss your options. You will also likely need an attorney to help you pursue a rescission of the expedited removal order or obtain the necessary waivers.

Are There Still Potential Problems if No Expedited Removal Order is Issued?

Even if no expedited removal order is issued along with a refusal of entry from CBP, you may still encounter problems with obtaining a new U.S. visa. A prime example is when CBP makes an INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) bar against you, which means you were found to be an intended immigrant without a proper immigrant visa. This is often the case if the CBP determined you worked in the United States without authorization or otherwise violated your nonimmigrant status.

If you then apply for a B1/B2 visitor visa, F-1 student visa, or any other nonimmigrant visa that requires you to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent under INA 214(b), the U.S. Consulate will be less inclined to grant the visa (even when there is no Expedited Removal Order in your record.) You will need to convince the U.S. Consulate that the circumstances have changed significantly, you have strong ties abroad to compel a timely departure from the United States, and you possess financial resources to avoid working without authorization. If applicable, you may explain how the CBP erred in refusing your entry or in making its inadmissibility determination. Having the right counsel to present proper documentation will help you improve the probability of a review on the merits and a visa grant.

To learn more, read our other articles:

Expedited Removal: How Does the Process Work at the U.S. Port of Entry and What Are the Main Concerns? 

Expedited Removal: How Do You Avoid, Challenge or Overcome It? 

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

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Photo by: friend JAD