Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests for Visa and Immigration Cases

Posted on 

A FOIA request can be extremely helpful to find out what information a government agency has; to clarify dates; and to “re-construct” a file in a case where documents were lost or misplaced. Such a request can be critical to overcome a finding of inadmissibility in visa cases, in particular, such as accusations of misrepresentations, alien smuggling and unlawful presence.  All agencies of the Executive Branch of the United States Government are required to disclose records upon receiving a written request for them, except for those records protected from disclosure by exemptions (e.g., law enforcement, security, and privacy reasons).  As a general rule, the Government does not charge fees for conducting the search, although it reserves the right to do so. What makes the FOIA process challenging is that there is no central office which processes FOIA requests for all federal agencies. Therefore, it is necessary to determine which agency…

Read more

Comparison of Immigrant Waivers

Posted on 

The journey to obtaining permanent residency in a new country can be fraught with challenges, and for many immigrants, overcoming certain legal barriers is a crucial step in this process. One such hurdle is the need for immigrant waivers, which allow individuals with specific grounds of inadmissibility to immigrate and continue their pursuit of a better life. Ideally, one would not need a waiver, and as illustrated throughout this site, if you believe that there was a factual or legal mistake made in the decision to bar you, you should certainly challenge that decision first.  Here, we will delve into and compare three types of immigrant waivers, each of which are submitted on Form I-601. 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Misrepresentation A waiver for a willful, material misrepresentation is available to a spouse or child of US citizen (USC) or Legal Permanent Resident (LPR). The legal standard to qualify for the waiver is “extreme…

Read more

Top 15 Trends and Observations in 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Visa Decisions – Part III

Posted on 

Here, we finalize our list of the top 15 trends and observations relating to Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) – findings of willful, material misrepresentations: 11. The Role of ICE/HSI.   Most individuals who have either submitted a work or immigration petition or application or entered the United States are familiar with the government agencies involved in those processes – US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), respectively.  And many are familiar with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as the “immigration police”: ICE enforces US immigration laws within the United States.  But not many are aware that the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) branch of ICE has officers embedded into certain consulates overseas and that those officers make findings of inadmissibility. ICE denies that it makes such findings – its position is that it is the consular officer who makes such findings, not ICE.  However, we have seen internal government…

Read more

Top 15 Trends and Observations in 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Visa Decisions

Posted on 

Unlawful presence (212(a)(9)(B)), misrepresentations (212(a)(6)(C)(i)), and alien smuggling (212(a)(6)(E)) continue to be the most frequently invoked inadmissibility bars to entry to the United States by consular officers.  And while unlawful presence based on overstays in the United States is a relatively straightforward legal decision, determinations of willful, material misrepresentations and alien smuggling are not.   How does one define “materiality”? Was the misrepresentation actually “willful”? What does it mean to “aid and abet the illegal entry” to the United States? This 3-part blog will focus on the latest trends in consular misrepresentation (“6Ci”) decisions; later, we will address recent trends in smuggling (“6E”) adjudications. Notwithstanding the pandemic and the limited operations of consular posts, the rendering of 6Ci determinations continues unabated.  In the pandemic years of FY2020 and FY2021, consuls entered more than 17,000 misrepresentation findings. During this time, we have observed the following: Politics is Overestimated. Many thought that with…

Read more

5 Years? 10? 20? How Far Back Will a Consular Officer Look for a Misrepresentation or Alien Smuggling?

Posted on 

People thought that with the passing of the Trump Administration, Department of State visa policies would become more tempered and that enforcement would moderate from the Trump-era extremes.  People, unfortunately, could not have been more wrong. Statutes of limitations exist for good reason: due process, basic fairness, evidence that becomes stale over the years, the disappearance or death of witnesses, fading memories, and to prevent inconsistent decisions.  But as discussed in a previous blog, there is no statute of limitations in visa law. And so consular officers are free to go back and review previous visa applications and time spent in the United States to determine whether a misrepresentation (Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i))  had been made at the time of the visa application or at the time of entry to the United States, or whether the individual had engaged in alien smuggling (Section 212(a)(6)(E)).  Critically, this holds true whether a consular officer…

Read more

The Fat Lady, Stowaways, and Alien Smugglers

Posted on 

“It ain’t over till the fat lady sings…”  The opera expression widely used in sports has taken on a whole new relevance in the immigration world.  No longer are government agencies approving applications and deferring to previously-approved applications or adjudications. Rather, they are reopening past applications – from 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago – searching for misrepresentations, inconsistencies, and loose ends to thwart applications for visas, changes to status, and adjustment of status. You are so close to getting that long-desired visa or green card, but the “fat lady” – in these cases, USCIS and the State Department consular posts – doesn’t want the “opera” to end. The boundaries are unlimited. Even relatively obscure provisions of immigration law, such as the “stowaway” provision, are being invoked more and more.  A stowaway is someone who obtains transportation without consent and through concealment.  Anyone who enters the US by a…

Read more

16 Reasons a Consul Finds Your K-1 Case Suspicious

Posted on 

Today we are publishing a new article about K-1 visas.  In the article we discuss the 16 primary reasons a consul finds a K-1 case suspicious. The article also highlights the 4 steps the American citizen and fiancée can take to prevent denials. Finally, the article discusses in detail how to deal with a 221(g) refusal, an accusation of a sham relationship, and what to do if the petition is sent back to USCIS. The most important takeaway from the article: just because there is a real, sincere relationship does not mean that the K-1 visa will be issued. A lack of evidence, a weak interview, or a skeptical consul who believes he knows the fiancee’s “true intentions” better than the US petitioner can sabotage a K-1 case.  Contact us to discuss your case.

Read more

Innocent Visa Applicants Applying for Nonimmigrant and Immigrant Waivers

Posted on 

With the dramatic upsurge in consular decisions to permanently bar visa applicants from the United States, the question of applying for an immigrant or nonimmigrant waiver has become more and more acute.  Many immigration lawyers will advise to just accept the decision, admit that you were wrong, say you are sorry, and apply for the waiver. They say that your chances of receiving the waiver will be increased if you admit your guilt and express remorse, even if you did not do anything wrong. But what if you are not “guilty”?  What if you did not commit a material misrepresentation (Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i))? Or engage in alien smuggling (Section 212(a)(6)(E))? Or commit a crime of moral turpitude (Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I))?  Should you admit you were wrong? Of course not. There are legal mechanisms to challenge such lifechanging decisions, such as a Request for Reconsideration.  Sometimes, the supervisor of the consular officer or…

Read more

Just Because They Say So, Doesn’t Make It True

Posted on 

 I received a frantic call from a client recently at her naturalization interview.  She was being advised by the interviewing officer that her application was going to be denied because she did not meet the residency requirements.  In the run-up to the interview, the client and I had reviewed all of the relevant legal issues, including the physical presence and continuous residence requirements, and I assured her that she met the requirements for naturalization.  The officer was kind enough to speak with me over the phone, but remained unpersuaded from her position that the residency requirements were not met. The client left the USCIS office and went home extremely upset, notwithstanding my attempts to calm her down and assurances that we were in the right and would be able to challenge any adverse decision. And then, two hours after the interview, something strange happened: I received an e-mail notification from…

Read more

Stunning Newly-Released Department of State Statistics Show Increases in Public Charge, Misrepresentation, Alien Smuggling, 214(b) Denials

Posted on 

The statistics stun – even the most callous observer.  In just two years, the number of individuals denied immigrant visas under the public charge section of the law (Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) has increased more than 12 times!  Alien smuggling (Section 212(a)(6)(E)) findings doubled for immigrant visa applicants over the past year.  Misrepresentation (Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)) decisions for these applicants increased by more than 25%.  214(b) denials for those applying for nonimmigrant visas – more than 2.7 million – also edged upwards. The Department of State’s statistics table lists more than 50 visa ineligibility grounds. But one is hard pressed to remember such a radical increase in denials for a single ineligibility as with the public charge provision over the past two years. Incredibly, this massive increase is not a result of any changes in or amendments to the law itself. This would take congressional action. Rather,…

Read more

In the Dark as to Why the Consular Officer Permanently Barred You from the United States for a Material Misrepresentation, Alien Smuggling or a Crime of Moral Turpitude? There is Hope.

Posted on 

Sometimes, it doesn’t make sense. When a potential client contacts us regarding a decision by a consular officer, we try to understand, first of all, why was the decision made?  What caused the consular officer to make the decision he or she did?  Often, we can understand the position of the consular officer; while we may not always agree with that position and in fact challenge the position, we at least can identify the problem. But sometimes, we are confounded.  Take for example the situation of J. J contacted us after he had been turned around at the border by Customs and Border Protection. The CBP protocol memorializing J’s request to enter the US was clear: it said that J needed a different type of visa. He had previously been a student in the US, and he needed to obtain a visitor visa in order to return to the US…

Read more

Part 2: Hadi Deeb: Tsar-Consul of Uzbekistan – A Stillborn Baby, An Infertile Woman, and “Why aren’t you Married?”

Posted on 

As background, some information about the Diversity Lottery is in order. The State Department administers the Diversity Lottery program, which allows for individuals from low-immigration countries with a high-school education or its equivalent or certain work experience to qualify to immigrate to the United States.[1] Every year, more than 10 million individuals from all over the world participate, with approximately 100,000 selected to pursue the 50,000 visas available. The popularity of the Diversity Lottery extends to the citizens of Uzbekistan, a poor, predominantly Muslim country in Central Asia. The annual Lottery is held in three stages: 1) a registration period, in which individuals submit their entries (in the fall); 2) selection and notification of the winners (spring); and 3) visa interviews/adjustment of status process (starting on October 1), at which time nonrefundable processing fees are paid. For selectees processing overseas, they must receive immigrant visas by September 30, or before…

Read more

Part 4: (In)Voluntary Statements of Visa Applicants at the US Consular Posts in India – Are US Consular Officers Engaging in Unethical and Unlawful Conduct?

Posted on 

So to summarize the first three articles in this series, under threat of immigration and criminal consequences, consular staff in India have compelled visa applicants to write and sign Voluntary Statements.  This staff have refused to turn over copies of the Voluntary Statements to the applicants;[1] used false pretenses to entice applicants to sign the Statements; and dictated the text of the Statements, which may contain material misstatements leading to decisions to bar the applicants. So if the Statements are “voluntary”, as consular staff insist, and the false statements therein subject the applicants to immigration and criminal consequences, what consequences should befall the initiators and overseers – consular staff and their managers – of the false statements? U.S. law has a number of criminal statutes dealing with false statements. 18 U.S.C. § 1621 is the perjury statute, providing for imprisonment up to five years and a fine.[2]  The perjury can…

Read more

Part 3: (In)Voluntary Statements of Visa Applicants at the US Consular Posts in India – Are US Consular Officers Engaging in Unethical and Unlawful Conduct?

Posted on 

So why don’t consular officers wish to give copies of these Voluntary Statements to visa applicants? Maybe because they are not so “voluntary” after all. As explained to me by several visa applicants from India, they do not voluntarily provide these statements. Rather, they are bullied, coerced, and compelled to write the statements. Worse, consular staff dictate the text of the statement under threat of permanent bar from the United States.  Even worse, the statements often contain materially erroneous information. One applicant said that US consular staff “threatened me that they will [b]an me from going back to USA if I don’t agree with their version of the story.”  Another stated: “At the end when she asked me to write down the statement, she especially [sic] dictated the whole thing to me.” Not only had this applicant been advised to indicate wrong information in her statement, but the officer attempted…

Read more