Tag Archives: expedited removal

Executive Order Cracks Down on Birth Tourism: Effects & Consequences for Nonimmigrants

Entering the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa to give birth on American soil and obtain birthright U.S. citizenship for the newborn child is known as Birth Tourism. Executive Order 14419, issued by the Trump Administration on August 6, 2026, is meant to end Birth Tourism and further prohibit any foreign national from helping a visitor to enter the U.S. to give birth.

Link Between Birthright Citizenship and Birth Tourism

Under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, birth in the United States gives the child automatic citizenship with all its rights and privileges, even if the parents are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents or have no authorized stay in the U.S.

Birth citizenship also provides the foreign national parent with potential immigration relief. For example, upon turning age 21, a U.S. citizen son or daughter may file an immigrant petition for a parent in the Immediate Relatives category, which has no numerical limits on immigrant visas available.

Prior Executive Order to Limit Birthright Citizenship 

The Trump Administration has stated that “Citizenship is not a commodity to be acquired through calculated exploitation and evasion of the immigration laws, such as by entering the United States on a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth within the Nation’s borders.”

The Administration previously issued Executive Order 14160 on January 20, 2025, to deny the issuance of documents or acceptance of documents recognizing U.S. citizenship to two groups of U.S.-born children:  (1) those whose mother was unlawfully present in the United States and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or  permanent resident at the time of birth or (2) those whose mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident at the time of birth.

Several U.S. states and nonprofit organizations challenged the Executive Order in federal courts, which blocked its implementation. On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court settled the question in Trump v. Barbara, a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups on behalf of affected families. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order 14160 violates the 14th Amendment, which is interpreted to mean that children born on American soil are U.S. citizens, regardless of whether the parents are unlawfully or temporarily present in the U.S.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ …We keep that promise today.”

Due to the federal courts’ orders and the Supreme Court’s decision, the Executive Order to restrict birthright citizenship never went into effect.

Executive Order to End Birth Tourism is Narrower

About a month after the Supreme Court’s decision, the Trump Administration issued Executive Order 14419 to end Birth Tourism. Instead of redefining birthright citizenship, it reduces access to it.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are instructed to update rules, policies, procedures or guidance as necessary and to take actions to enforce the Executive Order, including:

  • denying a visa or other travel authorization to an applicant entering or attempting to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in birth tourism;
  • revoking the visa or travel authorization and permanently barring entry of any applicant who enters or attempts to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in birth tourism;
  • denying entry to or removing an applicant who previously engaged or plans to engage in birth tourism;
  • fighting against entities, organizations, or individuals, within or outside of the United States, responsible for facilitating or enabling birth tourism in any manner.

The DOS and DHS may exempt a foreign national from actions taken pursuant to this order on humanitarian or national interest grounds, based on their discretion.

The Executive Order is a change in policy, not U.S. immigration law or the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, Birth Tourism involves entries for the main purpose of giving birth, not incidental pregnancy during lawful H-1B employment, F-1 studies, or other legitimate authorized stays.

Implementation of Birth Tourism Prevention Task Force

On August 12, 2026, the U.S. Department of State said it established the Birth Tourism Prevention Task Force and “is using all available tools to defend the integrity of U.S. citizenship, ensure nonimmigrant visas are used only for their lawful and intended purposes, and prevent their exploitation through birth tourism.”

The Fact Sheet from the Office of the Spokesperson states the Task Force:

  • reviews the activities of visa holders worldwide to identify instances of birth tourism, take action to revoke visas of those who engage in or facilitate it, and dismantle the networks that profit from this abuse.
  • addresses the abuse by analyzing and connecting information held across the Department and other federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
  • coordinates with the Department of State to address birth tourism on a global scale, examining travel histories of individuals from all around the world in order to end this exploitation and abuse.
  • has taken action to revoke more than 600 visas from foreign nationals across the globe to safeguard the nation from this abuse.

Previous Actions Against Birth Tourism

In the past, there was no specific law, regulation or policy prohibiting birth tourism per se or preventing a pregnant woman from entering the United States. Nonetheless, U.S. consular officers and customs officers often view it as a misuse of the visitor visa status and a gaming of the immigration system to give the child automatic citizenship.

On January 24, 2020, during the first term of the Trump Administration, a new rule was issued to restrict travel on a B visitor visa primarily to give birth in the United States. The updated U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual states the following on B-2 Tourist Visas:

Travel to give birth in the United States: Visiting temporarily for pleasure does not include travel for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States. Any B nonimmigrant visa applicant who you have reason to believe will give birth during their stay in the United States is presumed to be traveling for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for the child. The applicant can overcome this presumption if you find that the primary purpose of travel is not obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child.”

If officers have reason to believe the applicants will give birth during their stay in the United States, they are required to presume that giving birth to obtain U.S. citizenship is the applicant’s primary purpose of travel.  The applicant may overcome the presumption if they show, to the consular officer’s satisfaction, they have a different and permissible primary purpose of travel.

Examples are: (1) applicant’s primary purpose for travel is to visit a dying family member, and during the visit the applicant may give birth in the United States because the pregnancy due date overlaps with the family member’s last expected months of life; (2) medically complicated pregnancy and arrangement for specialized medical care in the United States, because such specialized care is not available in or near the country where the applicant resides.

If the officer sees the applicant is pregnant at the time of applying for a tourist visa or requesting admission as a visitor, he may refuse the visa or deny entry. This is why birth tourists who hail from various countries such as China, Taiwan, South Korea, Russia, Brazil and Mexico, typically come to the United States when their pregnancy is not so obvious.

Because a visitor visa may be used for medical treatment, your showing that giving birth in the United States served or serves a health purpose can be a positive factor. An example is if the pregnancy comes with high risks or serious complications. When you declare you are coming to the U.S. to give birth, and there is a lack of medical care in or near your country, the officer may grant the visa or admission based on proof of strong ties to your country, nonimmigrant intent, sufficient funds to cover all medical costs, and legitimate purpose of travel.

Paying all medical bills or having your own medical insurance to cover the expenses related to childbirth can help prevent a visa refusal or denial of admission. Ultimately, however, the consular officer or customs officer has discretion to determine whether having a baby in the U.S. is inconsistent with the purpose of a visitor visa. If they find that this is your main purpose, instead of for recreational or business travel or medical treatment, they will refuse your request, even if you can cover the medical expenses and will not receive government assistance to pay the bills.

Practical Effects and Consequences

Longstanding U.S. immigration law allows a consular officer to deny a B-1/B-2 visitor visa or other non-dual intent visa under INA 214(b) (failure to overcome presumption of immigrant intent). Giving birth during a prior visit might cause the officer to suspect you will do this again.

A non-resident parent who travels with a U.S. citizen child may face tougher scrutiny at the U.S. port of entry. A customs officer who discovers you had a child during a prior visit in the U.S. may deny your request for admission on a temporary visa and even issue an expedited removal order, which carries a five-year bar under INA 212(a)(9)(A)(i). Until the bar expires, the person will need a Consent to Reapply for Admission or approved Form I-212 application to receive a U.S. visa or U.S. entry.

In some cases, a consular officer or customs officer may issue a more serious charge under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)(fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain a visa or entry to the United States), which is a lifetime bar. When such an inadmissibility finding is made, you may appeal directly to the agency to reconsider and rescind the decision on the basis that giving birth in the U.S., by itself, does not make you inadmissible. But as long as the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar holds, you will need a 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver or a Form I-601/212(i) immigrant waiver to be admitted to the United States

Even if you succeed in gaining a visitor visa or entering the United States as a visitor to give birth, you might still encounter problems in the future when you apply for a new visa or admission as a nonimmigrant. Also, in some cases, an existing visa may be revoked or cancelled. Federal regulations under 22 CFR 41.122 allow U.S. consular officers to revoke a nonimmigrant visa at any time, at their discretion. A U.S. Customs & Border Protection officer at the U.S. port of entry may also revoke (physically cancel) the visa in certain situations. 

Short of banning birthright citizenship, the Executive Order serves to discourage nonimmigrants from traveling to the U.S. specifically to give birth and get automatic citizenship for their newborn children. Nonimmigrants who have visas to work or study in the United States should be less affected than temporary visitors, as giving birth in the U.S. would be more incidental to their authorized stay.

The DOS and DHS are expected to rollout implementing guidance on how they will apply the Executive Order. Whether this Presidential Action holds up under any federal court action will need to be monitored over the next several months.

# # #
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

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

B-1 Visitor Visa: Traveling to the U.S. for Business

Is the B-1/B-2 the right visa to enter the U.S. to participate in a business meeting? Attend a conference or convention? Negotiate a contract?

Yes on the B-1, but no on a B-2 only.

If you have a combination B-1/B-2 visa, you should inform the U.S customs officer of the main purpose of your visit. Get admitted in the right classification. The B-1 is more flexible than the B-2 classification. You may engage in business activities and tourism with a B-1. But the B-2 is for tourism and social visits only, with very limited exceptions in special circumstances.

The B-1 visa or combined B-1/B-2 visa is for nonimmigrants who seek to enter the U.S. temporarily for business reasons and tourism. To get the visa or gain entry to the U.S. on this visa, you need to show you will participate in only permitted activities.

Episode 10 of The Legal Immigrant podcast summarizes:

(A) What you can do in the U.S. as a B-1 visitor – 

1) Business activities of a commercial nature. Examples:

  • engage in commercial translations
  • negotiate a contract
  • participate in business meetings
  • litigate, including to participate in a lawsuit, take a claim to court, or settle an estate
  • attend a conference
  • do independent research

2) Professional activities that do not lead to compensation or employment in the United States. Examples:

  • ministers of religion and missionaries doing missionary work
  • volunteers participating in a recognized voluntary service program
  • professional athletes competing in a tournament or sporting event of international dimension
  • investors seeking investments in U.S. 

3) Limited activities that do not amount to substantive performance of work. Examples:

  • commercial or industrial workers needed to install, service or repair equipment as required by contract of sale
  • certain foreign airline employees in an executive, supervisory or highly technical role who travel to the U.S. to join an aircraft for onward international flight
  • third/fourth-year medical students pursuing medical clerkship at U.S. medical school’s hospital (without remuneration) as part of a foreign medical school degree

(B) U.S. immigration problems that might arise if you do remote work (including work for a foreign employer) while you are in the U.S. as a visitor 

  • the connection between U.S. tax law and U.S. immigration law
  • the risk of being found to have violated status if you perform activities that are not entirely consistent with the terms and conditions of the visa

(C) The eligibility requirements for the visitor visa

  • maintain a residence abroad that you do not intend to abandon
  • intend to stay in the U.S. for a specific, limited period
  • seek entry solely to engage in legitimate activities permitted on the visa
  • have no U.S. immigration violations or criminal offenses that make you inadmissible  or otherwise qualify for a waiver of inadmissibility

While the B-1 visa and status allow a wider range of visitor activities in the U.S. — compared to the B-2 visa — it has its limits.

A visitor visa holder is not guaranteed admission to the U.S. for temporary stays. At the U.S. port of entry, the U.S. Customs & Border Protection may issue an expedited removal order if it determines the person intends to engage in activities outside the purpose of the visitor visa, or has previously violated status during earlier visits.

The expedited removal order itself creates a 5-year bar to re-entry under INA 212(a)(9)(A). If the CBP also charges the person with fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact to obtain a visa or other U.S. immigration benefit, this leads to a permanent bar under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

To request a consultation on visitor visa problems, you may submit an inquiry by email at info@dyanwilliamslaw.com or by online message at www.dyanwilliamslaw.com

For more information, see:

Dyan Williams, Esq.
info@dyanwilliamslaw.com
www.dyanwilliamslaw.com

# # #

The Legal Immigrant podcast and this article provide general information only. It is based on law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for your situation. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Consent to Reapply for Admission – I-212 Waiver: Remedy to Overcoming INA 212(a)(9)(A) and (C) Bars

In this video, attorney Dyan Williams explains the remedy to obtaining a visa or lawful admission to the U.S. when you are barred due to a removal order, illegal re-entry, or aggravated felony conviction. The Consent to Reapply for Admission (I-212 Waiver) is needed when you are inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(A) and INA 212(a)(9)(C).

Get answers to these frequently asked questions:

1) Do I need a visa with the CTR?

2) Do I qualify for the CTR?

3) What must I prove to get the CTR?

4) How do I file for the CTR?

5) Do I need an attorney to file for the CTR?

For more information, see:

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

What should you do to get your I-212 Waiver?

Approval of Form I-212 + Grant of Immigrant Visa= A True Success Story

I-212 Waiver + Diversity Immigrant Visa = A True Success Story

Approval of Form I-212 + Grant of 212(d)(3) Nonimmigrant Waiver = A True Success Story

Contact Dyan for advice and guidance on the Consent to Reapply for Admission (I-212 Waiver).

This video provides general information and is for educational purposes only. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. U.S. immigration laws, regulations and policies are subject to change. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Work Permit Fraud May Lead to Visa Revocation, Visa Denial and INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Inadmissibility

On June 26, Weiyun “Kelly” Huang, owner of the fictitious companies, Findream LLC and Sinocontech LLC, was sentenced to 37 months in federal prison for conspiracy to commit visa fraud. Her companies provided false employment verification records to foreign nationals seeking F-1 or H-1B visa status.

The U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) played a key role in the investigation, which created ripple effects on persons who received F-1 or H-1B work authorization by using a job offer letter, payroll records or other employment verification documents from Findream or Sinocontech.

F-1 and H-1B Work Authorization Requires Legitimate Employment

An F-1 visa allows an international student to study in the United States at a university or other academic institution.  F students may engage in practical training during their academic program or after it ends. Curricular Practical Training (CPT) and Optional Practical Training (OPT) are the two types of training that provide work experience related to the field of study.

Eligible students may apply for up to 12 months of OPT employment authorization before completing their academic studies (pre-completion) and/or after completing their academic studies (post-completion). All periods of pre-completion OPT, however, are deducted from the available period of post-completion OPT.

The OPT employment can be part time (at least 20 hours per week on post-completion OPT) or full time; involve multiple short-term employers, contract work, self-employment, or agency work; and be paid or unpaid (as a volunteer or intern, as long as labor laws are not violated). The student must report all employment to their Designated School Official (DSO) to maintain status.

While a job offer is not required to apply for OPT, the student may not have a cumulative total of 90 days of unemployment during the 12-month OPT period. Otherwise, they fall out of status and no longer qualify for a change or extension of status.

Students may apply for an additional 24 months of OPT if they have a degree and are employed in a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics) field. An additional 60 days of unemployment is allowed during the 24-month extension, which means the student may be unemployed for a total of 150 days (i.e. 90 + 60 days) during the entire OPT, 36-month period. Exceeding 60 days of unemployment during STEM OPT means the student is out of status and is ineligible for a change or extension of status.

For the 24-month STEM OPT extension, the DSO requires the student to have an existing job offer from a U.S. employer and to submit a completed Form I-983 (training plan) that is signed by the student and employer.

Section 3 to Section 6 on the Form I-983 requests information on the company, the agreed-upon practical training schedule and compensation, and the formal training plan, respectively. Unlike regular OPT employment, STEM OPT employment must be paid.

An H-1B visa allows U.S.-based employers to temporarily employ foreign nationals in specialty occupations. Foreign nationals with H-1B status may stay in the U.S. for three years, with the possibility of extending their stay for a total of six years. H-1B status may be extended beyond the six-year limit in certain situations, such as when 365 days or more have passed since the filing of an application for labor certification or immigrant petition (Form I-140) for the beneficiary.

F-1 students with a timely filed H-1B petition and change of status request, and whose F-1 employment authorization will expire before the change of status to H-1B occurs (typically October 1), may be eligible for a cap-gap extension in the United States. In many cases, the OPT employment or STEM OPT employment is what allows the F-1 student to change to H-1B status without departing for visa processing at the U.S. Consulate.

ICE Investigations of Work Permit Fraud Schemes Continue

ICE’s crackdown on F-1 and H-1B visa fraud schemes spell trouble for international students and foreign national workers who use fake job offers to obtain F-1 OPT, F-1 STEM OPT, F-1 CPT, or H-1B status.

ICE may conduct on-site visits to confirm the visa holder is actually working for the employer and performing the appropriate duties. When little-known companies like Findream and Sinocontech show a high number of F-1 OPT and STEM OPT workers, this can prompt further investigation.

In March 2019, the United States filed a criminal complaint against the owner of Findream, with an affidavit from an FBI Special Agent stating it was a company on paper only, with no actual physical presence, and was created for the purpose of providing false verifications of employment to F-1 visa holders seeking to extend their stay in the U.S. via the OPT program.

The indictment stated that Huang advertised Findream as a “startup company in technology services and consulting,” with clients in China and the U.S.  She used a China-based website, “Chinese Looking for Job,” and a China-based WeChat platform, “Job Hunters of North America,” to advertise Findream and Sinocontech to F-1 visa holders in the U.S. seeking employment and H-1B visas.

The companies did not deliver any technology or consulting services, or employ any of the individuals who responded to the ads, the indictment stated. In exchange for a fee, Huang and the companies provided job offer letters and employment verification letters as proof of employment, the charges alleged. Falsified payroll records and tax forms were also said to be provided.

According to the indictment, the fraud scheme allowed at least 2,685 customers to list Findream or Sinocontech as their employer to extend their F-1 status. Subsequently, many F-1 and H-1B visa holders, particularly from China, had their visas revoked or denied or were refused entry to the United States (following travel abroad) because they had listed Findream or Sinocontech to receive work authorization.

These types of ICE investigations are ongoing. Recent reports indicate that F-1 students, most from India, have received notifications from U.S. Consulates that their visas have been revoked because they used job offer letters from Integra Technologies LLC and AZTech Technologies LLC to obtain OPT, STEM OPT and, in some cases, CPT work permits.

Through consultations with applicants, we have learned that F-1 and H-1B visa holders, most from India and China, are being refused admission at the U.S. port of entry if they previously held work authorization by association with suspicious companies, such as Integra Technologies, AZTech Technologies, and Tellon Trading, Inc. Expedited removal orders and lifetime inadmissibility charges of fraud or misrepresentation are being made by CBP for this reason.

Data from ICE shows that Integra Technologies, AZTech Technologies, and Tellon Trading were 2nd, 6th, and 10th respectively, on the list of Top 200 Employers for OPT and STEM OPT Students, which includes well-known companies like Amazon, Intel, Google, Microsoft, Deloitte, Facebook and Apple. (NOTE: At least two other companies, Wireclass and Aandwill LLC, have been linked with Integra and AzTech.)

Fraud or Willful Misrepresentation of Material Fact to Obtain U.S. Immigration Benefits is a Permanent Inadmissibility Ground

Federal agencies including ICE and USCIS have made it a priority to deter and detect immigration fraud and have increased site visits, interviews, and investigations of petitioners who use the F-1 OPT and H-1B visa programs. One reason is to protect the “many American workers who are as qualified, willing, and deserving to work in these fields have been ignored or unfairly disadvantaged,” according to the agencies.

Submitting a bogus job offer letter, employment verification letter, payroll records or other documents to maintain or obtain F-1 or H-1B status creates the risk of a visa revocation or visa refusal. It may also lead to the denial of admission and an expedited removal order at the U.S. port of entry.

Whether the F-1 or H-1B visa holder knowingly pays a company for false employment verification is sometimes unclear. The pattern involves the company initiating contact with the beneficiary and requesting payment of a “training fee” at the outset. The job offer or training program might seem real in the beginning. But at some point, it becomes obvious there is no real job.

Persons who claim to have a legitimate job offer to gain an F-1 extension or H-1B status — when there is actually no job — are subject to being found permanently inadmissible. When you present false employment verification records to show you performed job duties and got paid for such duties (in order to receive a visa or lawful status in the United States) you risk being charged with a lifetime inadmissibility ban under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)(fraud or willful misrepresentation of material facts to gain U.S. immigration benefits).

In unique situations, the person may challenge a section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar by filing a formal motion to reconsider with the appropriate agency, such as CBP or the U.S. Consulate. In most cases, the person will need a 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver or Form I-601/INA 212(i) immigrant waiver.

The 212(d)(3) waiver has relatively flexible eligibility standards, which includes addressing the risk of harm to society if the person is admitted to the United States, the magnitude of the U.S. immigration violation that caused the inadmissibility, and the importance of seeking the visa. The Form I-601 waiver has stricter requirements because the person must have a qualifying relative (U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent) who will suffer extreme hardship if the person is not admitted to the United States.

If you are caught up in or benefited from an F-1 or H-1B visa fraud scheme, consult a qualified U.S. immigration attorney to discuss possible remedies. Ongoing and willful participation in the scheme might seem like a victimless offense, but it carries serious and permanent U.S. immigration consequences.

###

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