Tag Archives: immigrant visa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a true success story.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

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

###

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

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a true success story.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

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

###

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

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) Allows Certain Widows or Widowers of U.S. Citizens to Become Permanent Residents Even When the Citizen Has Died

A U.S. citizen may file a Form I-130 immigrant petition for his or her spouse in the immediate relatives category. If the citizen dies, the widow(er) may still seek permanent residence in the United States under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration & Nationality Act, when certain conditions are met.

Who Qualifies for Widow(er) Benefits Under INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i)?

U.S. immigration statute permits widow(er)s of U.S. citizens to be classified as immediate relatives and continue the Immigrant Visa or Adjustment to Permanent Resident Status application process if they:

  • Were legally married to a U.S. citizen and not divorced or legally separated from the U.S. citizen at the time of death
  • File a Form I-360 self-petition within two years of the U.S. citizen spouse’s death or have a pending or approved Form I-130 filed by the U.S. citizen spouse prior to death, which will be automatically converted to a Form I-360 petition
  • Show they entered into the marriage in good faith and not solely for immigration benefits
  • Are admissible to the United States
  • Are not remarried before they receive the green card or immigrant visa (NOTE: If there is a remarriage, the applicant may still be able able to pursue section 204(l) relief if he or she was residing in the United States when the petitioner died and continues to reside in the United States).

How to Apply for Widow(er) Benefits

If there is a pending or approved Form I-130 petition, the widow(er) must notify USCIS of the U.S. citizen’s death. The agency will then automatically convert the I-130 to an I-360 self-petition. If there is no pending or approved I-130 at the time of death, the widow(er) must submit the Form I-360 self-petition to USCIS within two years of the U.S. citizen’s death.

Widow(er)s in the United States may file a Form I-485, application to adjustment to permanent resident status, either at the same time the I-360 is filed or after the I-360 is filed, whether it is pending or approved. If an I-485 application was already submitted based on a pending or approved I-130 filed by the deceased spouse, there is no need to file a new one.

A widow(er) who is living abroad may go through the I-360 approval or I-130/I-360 conversion process to apply for an immigrant visa at the U.S. Consulate overseas.

Admissibility Requirement

A Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, is not required for widow(er)s to establish they will not become a public charge under INA § 212(a)(4). A Form I-864W, Request for Exemption for Intended Immigrant’s Affidavit of Support, should be filed with the Immigrant Visa request or Adjustment of Status application.

Widow(ers) are not exempt from the 3/10 year bars to re-entry under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i) if they accrue more than 180 days of unlawful presence in the U.S. and depart for consular processing of the immigrant visa. The waiver for unlawful presence requires a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent, which many widow(ers) do not have. Whenever possible, widow(er)s should apply for Adjustment of Status within the U.S. and avoid triggering the 3/10 year bar.

If there are no significant negative factors, and a previously filed I-130 has been converted and approved as an I-360, USCIS will normally exercise discretion favorably in a Form I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal, of a widow(er) who is inadmissible due a prior removal order.

Children of Widow(er) of U.S. Citizen

Unmarried children under the age of 21 may be included in the immigrant petition as derivative beneficiaries. As “immediate relatives,” derivative children qualify for benefits under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), which “freezes” their ages as of the filing date of the Form I-130 or Form I-360, whichever is applicable. CSPA protects them from aging out if they turn age 21 prior to their being granted a green card or immigrant visa. Still, they must meet any other eligibility criteria or filing requirements. 

Consult a Qualified U.S. Immigration Attorney

A qualified U.S. immigration attorney can help with verifying your eligibility for widow(er) benefits and submitting a request for I-130 to I-360 conversion or filing a properly documented I-360 self-petition. It’s also important to seek counsel in the Adjustment of Status application within the United States or in the Immigrant Visa request at the U.S. Consulate abroad.

For information on other possible remedies for surviving relatives, read our related articles:

Humanitarian Reinstatement Allows Certain Principal Beneficiaries to Become Permanent Residents Even When Petitioner Has Died

Section 204(l) Allows Certain Surviving Relatives to Become Permanent Residents Even When Petitioner or Principal Beneficiary Has Died

###

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

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Photo by: mohamed_hassan

Grant of Motion to Vacate INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) (Misrepresentation) Charge+ Issuance of Immigrant Visas = A True Success Story

The U.S. Consulate granted immigrant visas to the father and mother of an adult U.S. citizen after previously denying them — one year earlier — under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) willful misrepresentation of material facts to gain U.S. immigration benefits).

Upon receiving our two Motions to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Determination, the Consulate responded within 10 days, stating it reviewed our requests and removed the permanent bar under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) in both cases. The Consulate instructed our clients to appear for a second interview after submitting updated visa application forms and required documents. Approximately six weeks later, they attended their second interview and were granted their immigrant visas to enter the United States as permanent residents.

At the first interview, the Consulate denied the immigrant visas because the applicants had  overstayed their authorized periods in the United States as B1/B2 visitors for many years, but apparently did not disclose this when they applied for new visitor visas.

The section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar could not be excused with a Form I-601/INA 212(i) waiver of inadmissibility because they had no qualifying relative  (i.e. U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent) who would suffer extreme hardship if they were not admitted to the United States. A U.S. citizen son does not count as a qualifying relative for immigrant waiver purposes.

Before seeking the immigrant visas based on their U.S. citizen son’s immigrant petition, our clients were informed about the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar when they sought new B1/B2 visitor visas 10 years earlier. At that time, they did not challenge the inadmissibility finding and instead received 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waivers to be granted visitor visas.

The 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver, however, has less stringent eligibility requirements than the Form I-601/INA 212(i) waiver. By the time the clients retained me to represent them in challenging the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar, almost one year had passed since they attended their first immigrant visa interview.

U.S. federal regulations give them one year from the date of the immigrant visa refusal to file a Motion to Reconsider with new evidence or legal arguments. Responding quickly and effectively, I counseled the clients in preparing their declarations (written testimonies) and gathering documentary evidence showing their overstay occurred before April 1, 1997 and they departed the United States in May 1996.

In the Motion to Reconsider, I acknowledged the applicants might have stated “no” to the  question on whether they had violated the terms of a U.S. visa or been unlawfully present in the United States, when they should have said “yes.”

The father explained that he had used a professional broker service, paid for by his employer, to help fill out the visa application and that if a misrepresentation had occurred, it was not willful. The mother denied stating “no” to the overstay, but had no copies of the visa applications she had submitted.

In any event, I argued that to invoke the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar, the Consulate must not only find that willful misrepresentation occurred, but also that the information at issue was material to the applicant’s admissibility. I pointed out that both visa applicants departed the United States in May 1996 following their long overstay as visitors. The departure date was critical.

The U.S. Congress did not enact the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act until September 30, 1996, when the 3/10 year unlawful presence bar was introduced. Any unlawful presence that was accrued prior to April 1, 1997, when the law went into effect, does not count for purposes of the 3/10 year bar under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i).

Therefore, when the clients applied for new visitor visas in the early 2000’s, they had not accrued any unlawful presence that made them inadmissible to the United States or ineligible for a visitor visa under INA 212. If there was any failure to disclose an overstay on the visitor visa applications, it did not cut off a relevant line of inquiry regarding their admissibility or visa eligibility.

The clients were fortunate to have the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar lifted upon Motion to Reconsider, particularly because they had no qualifying relative for Form I-601/INA 212(i) purposes. While they could have continued to apply for B1/B2 visitor visas with 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waivers for temporary trips, their true desire was to live permanently in the United States with their U.S. citizen son. Having permanent resident status further allows them to file immigrant petitions for their two younger children (under age 21), who were born overseas and need to join them in the United States.

Upon receiving the good news that the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar had been removed, the applicants sent me a thank-you email stating, “We are so happy and thrilled and would not be celebrating today if it wasn’t for your talent and expertise. We will always be grateful to you for this outcome. Even in our best estimates, we could never expect a response in such a short time.”

Helping my clients obtain their immigrant visas within two months of filing the Motion to Reconsider and Rescind the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar is a true success story.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

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

###

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

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Photo by: Alexas_Fotos

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

A U.S. citizen and his permanent resident sister consulted me about their mother’s immigrant visa case, after the U.S. Consulate found her inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), i.e. illegal reentry following accrual of more than one year of unlawful presence in the United States.  With my counsel, their mother (my client) filed a Form I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission Into the United States, which the USCIS Field Office in Salt Lake City, Utah approved on February 17, 2017.

The I-212 approval led the U.S. Consulate to schedule the mother for a follow-up interview and issue the immigrant visa. This was her second immigrant visa application based on an approved I-130 immigrant petition her U.S. citizen son filed for her.

Ten years ago, the U.S. Consulate denied her first immigrant visa application upon finding her inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), i.e. accrual of unlawful presence of one year or more in the United States prior to departing the country. Because she had no qualifying relative (U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent) to be eligible for the Form I-601 [INA § 212 (a)(9)(B)(v)] unlawful presence waiver, she had to wait 10 years for that bar to expire. After waiting a decade to file her second immigrant visa application, she was shocked to hear she was still permanently barred under INA 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I).

The mother’s description of her re-entry into the United States — following accrual of unlawful presence of more than one year — indicated she was “waved through” at a U.S. border checkpoint, even though she lacked proper travel documents. In general, this means the person entered the United States as a passenger in a car after an immigration officer waved the car through the port of entry.

I counseled the family on two different paths the mother could take to obtain the immigrant visa: (a) file a motion to reconsider with the U.S. Consulate, requesting it find that the wave through counted as a lawful admission and was not an illegal entry to trigger the permanent bar under INA 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I); OR (b) file a Form I-212 application to be excused from the permanent bar.

Because the mother lacked objective evidence of a wave through, the family chose to file a Form I-212 application with USCIS instead of a motion to reconsider with the U.S. Consulate.

The applicant must be outside the U.S. for 10 years before she may file a Form I-212 to be excused from a section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)((I) bar. Luckily, my client had already completed the 10 years while she was waiting for the unlawful presence bar to run. After several discussions with the family, I determined there were sufficient favorable factors to get an I-212 approval.

I worked extensively with the family to prepare their written testimonies and gather supporting documentary evidence to prove their mother regretted her past immigration violations, has good moral character, and did not pose a threat to the American community. I also counseled them on how to establish that her denial of admission would cause unusual hardships to her as well as to her family in the United States. In addition, I prepared a legal memorandum outlining the facts and procedural history, citing to the evidence, and discussing why the mother deserved the waiver based on case precedents, statutory law, and existing policies.

While the Form I-212 application remained pending, I sent a follow-up letter to the USCIS Field Office,  requesting approval and including additional evidence of the hardships the U.S. citizen son, in particular, was suffering due to his mother’s absence from the United States.

After several months had passed, the sister called to ask me whether there were any additional steps to take to get the USCIS Field Office to issue a decision.  I began to explain the various ways  (including seeking Congressional assistance) until she stopped me mid-sentence and started screaming with joy. She had just received a message from her brother stating he received the I-212 approval notice!

The mother’s follow-up interview with the U.S. Consulate occurred in April 2017, and shortly after she was issued the immigrant visa. After 13 long years of separation, she may now finally reunite with her family in the United States.

The brother and sister live in different U.S. states,  and their mother lives in a South American country. Although we communicated by telephone and email and never met in person during the course of representation, we developed a strong, trust-based relationship, which contributed to a favorable outcome. This is a true success story for Dyan Williams Law PLLC and for my client and her family.

Preparing approvable Form I-212 applications are among our main areas of expertise. Clients benefit from the advice we give in filing Form I-212 requests to lawfully re-enter the United States following a removal order or other immigration violation.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

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

###

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

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Photo by: Paucal