Tag Archives: willful misrepresentation

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
dw@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

Rescission of INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) (Misrepresentation) Finding + Grant of H-1B Visa = A True Success Story

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.

The Embassy did not specify the factual basis for the misrepresentation finding. But years ago, my client’s H-1B visa was revoked by the U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) and he was denied entry and allowed to withdraw his application for admission.

In particular, at primary inspection, the CBP officer asked him about his relationship with the H-1B petitioner (consulting firm) and the end client. Instead of naming the consulting firm as his U.S. employer, he mistakenly gave the name of the end client, where he was assigned to work. From there, confusion began.  At secondary inspection, the CBP questioned him extensively and ultimately denied his entry under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)(intended immigrant without valid travel document) – which CBP often uses as a catch-all provision to refuse admission to the U.S.

A few years later, the Embassy did issue him a new H-1B visa based on an approved I-129 petition by another U.S. employer, without raising the misrepresentation bar. But when he later requested a visa renewal to enter the United States following a trip abroad, the Embassy requested several documents related to his previous employments in the United States. These included the I-797 (receipt and approval) notices for all H-1Bs; all I-129/H-1B petitions filed on his behalf; Labor Condition Applications in support of the H-1B petitions filed on his behalf; support letter from the end client; employment contracts; and pay statements.

Despite receiving the requested documents, the Embassy denied the H-1B visa  under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). When he applied again for the H-1B visa three months later – at the direction of his U.S. employer – the Embassy said nothing had changed and again refused the visa under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

After being denied the H-1B visa twice on misrepresentation grounds, he contacted me to prepare a Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Determination Under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). The Embassy accepted my legal memorandum and some of the documentary evidence establishing the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar was applied in error. It placed the case in administrative processing and then finally granted the visa two months later.

Although my client could have filed for a 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver, I explained this would take a longer time to process and a waiver grant would still leave the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar intact. He also had an approved I-140 immigrant petition filed on his behalf and the 212(d)(3) waiver would not overcome the inadmissibility ground to receiving an immigrant visa or green card. With no qualifying relative (U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent) to be eligible for a Form I-601/INA 212(i) immigrant waiver, he would be subject to being denied permanent residence as long as the 212(a)(6)(c) bar remained.

Furthermore, and most important, he had made no willful misrepresentation of material fact to obtain an H-1B visa or any other U.S. immigration benefit. I pointed out that if the Embassy agreed to rescind the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge, he would not require a 212(d)(3) waiver for the H-1B visa to be issued.

Two months following the visa interview, the Embassy instructed my client to submit his passport. It issued the H-1B visa to him and he re-entered the United States without any problems. 

Because the Embassy vacated the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge, my client will not need a 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver to receive a new H-1B or other nonimmigrant visa. He also will not require a Form I-601/INA 212(i) waiver to obtain permanent residence in the United States.

Through emails, telephone calls  and video conferences, my client and I worked together to convince the Embassy to vacate the misrepresentation bar and grant the H-1B visa. This is a true success story in which he timely received the visa after being denied it twice in a row.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

Founder & Principal Attorney
Dyan Williams Law PLLC
(612) 225-9900
dw@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: Holiho

Grant of Motion to Vacate INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) (Misrepresentation) Charge+ Issuance of H-1B Temporary Worker Visa = A True Success Story

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.

This lifetime inadmissibility bar prevented him from obtaining the visa without first receiving a 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver from the U.S. Customs & Border Protection, Admissibility Review Office. This waiver normally takes at least four to six months to process, assuming the Embassy makes a favorable recommendation and forwards the request to the CBP-ARO for review and a decision.

At the outset, I explained to the client that he had solid grounds to challenge the inadmissibility finding. He did not disclose the arrest or charge against him because it was was based on false allegations of Domestic Violence by his now ex-wife. He denied these unsubstantiated claims and did not plead guilty to the offense. The court also dismissed the charge due to lack of evidence.  There was no conviction or formal admission to committing the offense.

Because he was not inadmissible on crime-related grounds, his omission of the arrest and charge was immaterial to his visa eligibility. If he had disclosed this information on his visa application and during the interview – as he should have – he still would have qualified for the visa.

I explained to the client that while the 212(d)(3)(A) waiver request is a viable, alternative solution, it has several disadvantages. First, this path would leave the INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar in his record because it only waives the inadmissibility ground, but does not get rid of it.

Second, the 212(d)(3) waiver is valid for up to 60 months (5 years), which means he would need to file for a new one, upon expiration, to continue to receive nonimmigrant visas. Furthermore, the 212(d)(3) waiver is for nonimmigrants and does not allow the issuance of a green card or immigrant visa to intended immigrants when the person is inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). Rather, he would instead require a Form I-601/INA 212(i) immigrant waiver, which carries stricter eligibility requirements and higher evidentiary standards.

Moreover, the lengthy processing time for the 212(d)(3) waiver put the client at high risk of losing his position in the United States. His employer was already facing financial difficulties and project delays due to his absence.

I advised the client to apply again for the H-1B  visa and counseled him on how to present his case at the new visa interview. He opted for the 212(d)(3) waiver as a backup option and presented a Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Determination Under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) (willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain immigration benefit) as his primary solution.

To support the Motion to Reconsider, I wrote a legal memorandum explaining  how the INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar was applied in error and should be vacated to allow the Embassy to issue the visa without requiring a 212(d)(3) waiver. I also helped the client finalize his written testimony in support of the motion, as well as prepared him for oral testimony at the visa interview. The Embassy accepted the legal memorandum and written testimony and listened to his oral testimony. It then placed the case in administrative processing.

Following the visa interview, the client waited approximately 30 days to receive instructions from the Embassy to submit his passport.  The Embassy took another 20 days to process and issue the H-1B visa showing clearance was received. During the waiting period, I submitted several follow-up inquiries to the Embassy to request the visa issuance and to help relieve the client’s anxiety.

A few days later, my client entered the United States with his new H-1B visa. At the U.S. port of entry, the U.S. Customs & Border Protection asked no questions about the prior inadmissibility finding.

The section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge was removed and the client is no longer subject to this permanent bar. As such, he will not need a 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver to receive a new H-1B or other nonimmigrant visa. In addition, he will not require a Form I-601/INA 212(i) waiver to obtain permanent residence in the United States.

During the course of representation, I gathered information and answered questions from the client by email and video calls. Despite never having an in-person meeting, we effectively collaborated and communicated with each other to create a true success story.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

Founder & Principal Attorney
Dyan Williams Law PLLC
(612) 225-9900
dw@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: qimono

Grant of Motion to Vacate Inadmissibility (Misrepresentation) Finding + Issuance of F-1 Student Visa = A True Success Story

On February 13, 2017, the U.S. Embassy granted my client’s Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Determination Under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) (willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain immigration benefit) and issued his F-1 student visa. He may now pursue his studies in the United States, starting in fall 2017, after he was previously denied the visa two and a half years ago for misrepresenting information in his application.

The U.S. Embassy approved the motion and F-1 visa request within 3 weeks of when my client appeared for his visa interview and asked for a rescission of the inadmissibility finding.

Prior to the visa interview, I guided him in gathering documentary evidence and preparing his affidavit (written testimony) explaining his reasons for failing to disclose certain information in his prior student visa application. Citing to the record, I prepared the strongest legal briefs in support of a Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Inadmissibility Finding, as well as a 212(d)(3)(A) nonimmigrant waiver application as a backup option.

In his first F-1 student visa application, my client failed to disclose his prior names and previous visit to the United States. After the U.S. Embassy charged him as inadmissible and denied his visa due to misrepresentation, it instructed him to file for a nonimmigrant waiver of inadmissibility.

He did not file for the waiver, but instead hired another attorney to challenge the inadmissibility finding. The attorney submitted a Request for Advisory Opinion to the Visa Office, but did not counsel him to re-apply for the F-1 student visa and appeal directly to the U.S. Embassy to vacate the inadmissibility finding.

By the time he consulted me, he had been waiting for more than 2 years since his first F-1 visa application was denied and more than 1 year since his prior attorney filed the Request for Advisory Opinion (with no decision to date).

A willful misrepresentation charge under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) permanently bars an applicant from obtaining a visa or entering the United States. To be inadmissible on this ground, he must not only willfully misrepresent information, but the information must also be material to his visa eligibility.

After reviewing my client’s case, I concluded his refusal to disclose information – which was specifically requested on the visa application form – did not affect whether he qualified for the visa. He also had compelling reasons for not providing the information, which had nothing to do with obtaining the visa.

I advised him to re-apply for the F-1 visa and, as option A, file a motion to vacate the inadmissibility finding directly with the U.S. Embassy.  He also agreed to have a 212(d)(3)(A) nonimmigrant waiver request prepared, as option B, in the event the U.S. Embassy denied his motion to vacate.

The U.S. Embassy agreed to vacate the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge and issue the F-1 visa after I presented a convincing legal argument, persuasive documentary evidence, and a detailed affidavit from my client showing he needed to enter the United States to attend school, has strong ties to his country, would pose no harm to the community, and did not commit material misrepresentation to be inadmissible.

The 212(d)(3)(A) waiver request was available as an alternative solution, but it normally takes at least four months to process. The client needed to receive his visa by May 1st to confirm attendance at the school, which had deferred his admission for more than two years and could not hold his place beyond fall 2017.

He was relieved and happy when the U.S. Embassy granted the motion to vacate inadmissibility finding and issued the F-1 visa by February 13th, which spared him from using the lengthier waiver application process.

Because the permanent bar to receiving a visa or entering the United States under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) no longer exists, it will be much easier for him to obtain visa renewals and travel to the United States.

My client, who lives in East Asia, communicated with me by Skype initially, and then by telephone and email during the course of representation. At the time he consulted me, he had contacted another attorney to file a 212(d)(3)(A) waiver request. The attorney told him it would take at least 4 months to prepare the waiver application and if he wanted it sooner, he would have to pay a much higher fee. The attorney did not advise him to file a motion to vacate the inadmissibility finding with the U.S. Embassy, even though this was the better option under the circumstances.

I prepared both the motion and the 212(d)(3)(A) waiver request at a reasonable fee within 2 months. The foreign national was pleased with the collaborative process and thankful for the favorable, timely results. This is a true success story in early 2017 for Dyan Williams Law PLLC.

Helping clients overcome visa refusals through the rescission of inadmissibility findings or through waiver grants are among my top areas of expertise. Enabling a foreign national to obtain a visa to enter the U.S. lawfully – especially after he has been deemed inadmissible- takes a lot of time, attention, and work. But the potential benefits are worth the dedicated effort.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

Founder & Principal Attorney
Dyan Williams Law PLLC
(612) 225-9900
dw@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: Tara R.

Grant of Motion to Vacate Expedited Removal Order + Rescission of Misrepresentation Charge = A True Success Story

On November 9, 2016 – several hours after Donald Trump gave his acceptance speech as U.S. President-elect – I received a telephone call from the U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) on a Motion to Vacate Expedited Removal Order I had filed on October 31st (only 9 days earlier). I had appealed to the CBP Field Office, which denied my client admission at the U.S. port of entry, to rescind the removal order and the charge that she willfully misrepresented material fact to gain entry into the U.S. as a visitor.

My client sought entry into the U.S. on a valid B1/B2 visitor visa, which she obtained six months before she married her U.S. citizen spouse. Following the marriage in her home country, she and her elderly parents arrived at an international U.S. airport for a temporary visit. Her American spouse also accompanied them on their first trip to the U.S.

Her plan was to tour the U.S. with her parents and get accustomed to the American lifestyle and culture before she returned to her home country to start the marriage-based immigrant visa process. They had return airline tickets to leave the U.S. within two weeks.

At primary inspection, she and her parents presented the proper travel documents (valid passports) and entry documents (unexpired 10-year, B1/B2 visitor visas) to the CBP officer. While her parents were admitted as visitors, she was pulled into secondary inspection.

During secondary inspection, the CBP officer questioned her about the purpose of her trip. She explained the temporary nature of her visit and, while she was reaching for her return airline ticket, the officer took her personal belongings and searched through them.

Among her personal belongings was a folder containing several documents. In the folder, the CBP officer found two letters from an employer in her home country that were contradictory. The first letter stated she had resigned from her position, indicating she was no longer employed. The second letter stated she was on a leave of absence, implying she still had a job.

She immediately clarified that the second letter contained false information and she had in fact resigned from her job. She described her plans to return to her home country on time and later apply for an immigrant visa, based on her marriage to a U.S. citizen.

Instead of allowing her to withdraw her application for admission due to lack of a proper visa, the CBP detained and interrogated her for at least five hours. She was questioned by two CBP officers until her Sworn Statement was taken about eight hours after she arrived at the airport.

Using a Form I-867A & B, Record of Sworn Statement in Proceedings under Section 235(b)(1) of the Act, the CBP officer documented her testimony in a question and answer format. My client signed the Sworn Statement and initialed each page without fully reading or understanding the contents.

The CBP issued a Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal Order, finding her inadmissible, denying her entry, and ordering her expeditiously removed on two counts. The first charge was under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), i.e. lack of proper travel documents. The second (and more serious) charge was under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), i.e. fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact to gain admission into the U.S. by presenting a fake letter.

My client was sent back to her country the following day on the next available flight. Her spouse and parents booked airline tickets and returned there as well. A week later, she and her spouse completed a video consultation with me via Skype.

In the consultation, I explained that the expedited removal order, by itself, subjects you to a 5-year bar to reentry. And a charge of fraud/willful misrepresentation under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) furthers bars you permanently from entering the U.S.

I  described the two main options to immigrate to the U.S. following an expedited removal order with a misrepresentation charge.

Option A is to submit a Motion to Vacate the Expedited Removal Order to the CBP Field Office that issued the order. Because this request is, in essence, a motion to reopen or reconsider to the Service, the CBP must receive it within 30 days of the date of the order.

Option A is available if the applicant has factual grounds and legal claims to challenge the CBP’s determination that she is inadmissible to the U.S. and must be expeditiously removed from the U.S.

Option B is to file an  I-212, application for permission to reapply for admission after removal, to overcome the 5-year bar. Plus file an I-601, application for INA 212(i) waiver of inadmissibility, to be excused from the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge – a permanent bar. Both waivers must be filed in conjunction with the immigrant visa application, and are typically submitted at or after the visa interview.

Option B is available if the applicant meets the eligibility requirements for the I-212 waiver and I-601 waiver. To get the I-212 waiver, the applicant must have favorable factors (e.g. close family ties in the U.S.) that outweigh the unfavorable factors (e.g. bad moral character). To receive the I-601 waiver, the applicant needs a qualifying relative (i.e. U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent) who will suffer extreme hardship if she is not admitted to the U.S.

The foreign national and her American spouse chose Option A as their primary solution, and Option B as their backup plan. Both options require strong documentary evidence, favorable facts, and persuasive legal arguments for an approval to be possible.

During the next three weeks that followed the consultation, I counseled my client and her spouse on the documentary evidence to gather for the request to vacate expedited removal order. The evidence demonstrated the temporary nature of the planned visit, my client’s ongoing ties to her home country, and her and her spouse’s good moral character.

Furthermore, I reviewed the Sworn Statement and Notice and Order of Expedited Removal Order, the agency’s policy manual, and applicable case law to formulate the strongest legal arguments to support the motion.

In the Motion to Expedite Removal Order, I noted that my client had proper travel documents in the form of an unexpired passport and valid visitor visa. I argued she was not inadmissible under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) because it was appropriate for her to travel to the U.S. on a valid B1/B2 visa for a temporary visit, even though she was married to a U.S. citizen.

In addition, I explained why the CBP made an error by making a willful misrepresentation charge under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). I pointed out that my client did not affirmatively provide the fake leave of absence letter to the CBP officer, who found it during his search of her personal belongings. I added that even if she had misrepresented a material fact, she timely recanted it by admitting the letter contained wrong information and clarifying she was unemployed in her home country.

I pointed out the CBP should have at least given her the opportunity to withdraw her application for admission, rather than issue an expedited removal order that subjected her not only to a 5-year bar, but also to a permanent bar.

The normal processing time for a Motion to Vacate Expedited Removal Order is 6 months. To my pleasant surprise, it took less than 10 days for CBP to review the motion and make a decision in this case.

Four days after the CBP Field Office received the motion, a CBP officer telephoned me to convey they were taking the request into serious consideration.

On November 9th, which was 9 days after receiving the motion, the Watch Commander at the CBP Field Office called to say he would vacate the expedited removal order and treat the case as a withdrawal of application for admission to the U.S. He noted that my client was no longer barred from entering the U.S.

The foreign national no longer has a 5-year bar to reentry due to the removal order or a permanent bar to reentry due to the willful misrepresentation charge. She now readily qualifies for a marriage-based immigrant visa without needing any waivers of inadmissibility.

The rescission of the removal order and dismissal of the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) charge means my client will not need an I-212 waiver or I-601 waiver to get the immigrant visa. This will make it significantly easier and faster for her to immigrate to the U.S. (because waiver requests often take 6 to 12 months to be adjudicated).

My client, her spouse and I communicated by Skype, telephone and email. They decided to hire me upon completing the initial video consultation, in which I laid out a strategy and action plan to resolve their immigration predicament.

Although we never met in person, we worked together effectively to create a desired and expeditious outcome. I continue to represent them in their I-130 immigrant petition and immigrant visa process.

The speedy approval of the request to vacate expedited removal order and dismissal of the misrepresentation charge is a true success story in 2016 for Dyan Williams Law PLLC.

I enjoy taking on challenging cases in which foreign nationals seek to enter the U.S. lawfully as an immigrant or nonimmigrant, after they have been found inadmissible or issued an expedited removal order. Getting I-212, I-601 and 212(d)(3) waivers are among my top areas of expertise.

Under the new administration – which begins on January 20, 2017,  and is expected to be more hardline on immigration – lawful entries into the U.S. will be more critical than ever.

Cheers,

Dyan Williams

Founder & Principal Attorney
Dyan Williams Law PLLC
(612) 225-9900
dw@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: Ian D. Keating