212(a)(6)(C)

The US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) created a special category of visas for professionals from Canada and Mexico to work in the United States.  The role of the consular officer is to ensure that the applying professional has the qualifications for the offered job and that the job is bona fide, as well as to facilitate the prompt entry into the United States of these professionals. But apparently some consular officers in Mexico are infused with a “culture of no” mentality, denying and victimizing many well-qualified Mexican applicants. To be clear, there has been some fraud in Mexico in TN applications. This is not about those cases, in which the consul is justified in imposing a bar under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). The consuls in Mexico are under daunting time pressures: they issue nearly 50,000 TN and TD (for dependents) visas a year, with only a few minutes to make a decision at the…

Consular zealotry knows no bounds.  That is the impression that I am getting after conducting a flurry of consultations on visa denials related to EB-3 cases. After an EB-3 immigrant visa is denied at the Embassy, the I-140 approved petition is referred back to USCIS for review, often with an accusation against the applicant about a supposed willful, material misrepresentation. Compounding the problem, sometimes the petitioner-employer in the US decides not to continue the process or the applicant changes his or her mind and decides to pursue other immigration options (e.g., if has a US citizen adult child).  But like that evil jack-in-the-box or Jason in Friday the 13th, the “bad guy” – the misrepresentation allegation in the form of a Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding – pops up out of nowhere when you least expect it, years later when applying for a new, different visa.  This then complicates the ability to…

After waiting years, your I-601A Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver was approved. Congratulations. And now it’s time to travel outside the US, apply for and receive an immigrant visa, and return to the US with a clean slate, right? Well, not necessarily… Not if ill-intentioned or overzealous consular officers have anything to do with it. There is a popular misconception that if you have an approved I-601A, USCIS has reviewed the entirety of your immigration history and forgiven any violations.  That is wrong.  USCIS has only considered your unlawful presence violation and found extreme hardship to your qualifying relative. But do you remember that visa that you applied for 25 years ago? And that you later used that visa to enter and remain in the US? The consular officer has not forgotten.  Now, in such situations, these officers are increasingly entering permanent bars for a Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) willful, material…

Fair is fair, right?  Consular officers can and do impose permanent bars for an alleged misrepresentation in a visa application form or entry to the United States from 5, 10, 20, 25 years ago. For example, we have seen some crazy decisions at visa interviews based on a supposed misrepresentation made to an airport inspector decades ago about their true intent – triggered by application of the so-called 90-day rule. But on the flip side, did you know that there are no time limitations on when you may challenge a consular visa decision to permanently bar you from the United States? If the visa decision made to permanently bar you for a misrepresentation, alien smuggling, or conviction of a crime of moral turpitude was made last week, last year, last decade, or even 35 years ago and it was wrong then, it is wrong – and continues to wreak havoc…

The beauty of obtaining a nonimmigrant waiver? That once you receive one, going forward, you will almost automatically receive the second one, and the third one, and the fourth one…. But the trick is – obtaining that first one… The nonimmigrant waiver process is rather straightforward. For most applicants of the nonimmigrant waiver (also known as a Section 212(d)(3)(A) or Hranka waiver), there is no application form and there is no filing fee; you simply request the waiver at the visa interview.  If the consular officer recommends the waiver, then Customs and Border Protection will usually agree with the recommendation and grant the waiver.  The consul will then issue a visa with a waiver annotation. So how to obtain that elusive consular recommendation? Well, if the applicant is applying for a B visitor visa or a F student visa, he/she must overcome his/her 214(b) burden first before the consul will…

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…

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…

In Part 1, we described the materials recently received from a Freedom of Information Act request to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  The materials are not only eye-opening but indeed shocking: they show that the students were let down by delinquent government and university actors that failed to warn them of the scam.  Most mind-boggling: the US government is now using its own delinquency as a sword against these students in permanently barring them from the United States and using shell-game tactics to make it is as difficult as possible to challenge the bars.  Here, we provide additional details from those ICE reports: The Homeland Security Investigations Wilmington office identified approximately 1,925 STEM OPT students associated with AzTech. HSI administratively arrested 15 STEM OPT students.  (An administrative arrest is the arrest of a foreign individual for a civil – not criminal – violation of U.S. immigration laws.  These cases are then…

In addition to Amazon, Intel, and Google, according to ICE statistics, Integra Technologies was one of the top 4 employers of OPT students in 2017 and 2018.  In 2019, AzTech was one of the top 4 employers, together with Amazon, Google, and Deloitte. During these three years, Integra and AzTech “employed” nearly 5,000 foreign students.  So why did it take until January 2020 for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to launch a comprehensive investigation into the activities of Integra and AzTech?  This is the mind-boggling conclusion evident in materials received as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. Why was ICE asleep at the wheel, while thousands of innocent, unwitting foreign students were victimized by a years-long scam and now are permanently barred from the United States under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) as a result? And where were the university DSOs during this scandal? Last week we finally received internal ICE…

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…

Last week we began the list of the top 15 trends and observations relating to the consular imposition of permanent bars under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for willful, material misrepresentations. Hopefully, this will inform and educate as you plan for future visa applications.  Here, we continue that list: 6. OPT Fraud.  Much ink and many tears have been shed over the OPT scandal, with the full impact only now being felt.  Starting in 2020, thousands of individuals have been permanently barred from the US for their association with scam OPT companies, such as Findream, AZTech, Integra, Wireclass, and Global IT Experts.  More can be read about this scandal on our blogs, but suffice to say that the consequences will be felt for the rest of the lives of not only these individuals, but close family members and American employers as well.  Instead of being able to live the American dream, these talented…

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…

It is fire season here in California, and inevitably talk turns to what could have been done to prevent the latest big fire, that the fire could have been prevented if only…. The lessons learned are so applicable to visas that I even have a painting of firemen and a firetruck in my office.  Clients come to me with a “five-alarm fire,” and often my first thought is what could have been done to prevent the fire.  Sometimes, the problem is as simple as correctly and properly filling in the DS-160 visa application form or even having a copy of the visa application form. In many of these consultations, inevitably the topic turns to what was indicated in the visa application form.  I ask for a copy of the DS-160 visa application form and the client does not have one. The client attempts to reconstruct the application or tries to…

Just because you have arrived at an airport in the United States does not mean that you are protected by the US Constitution and the right to be free from unreasonable searches. This is the unfortunate lesson learned by hundreds of travelers each day to the US.  Worse, the messages on one’s own phone can lead to a cancelled visa, a return trip home, and a permanent ban on entry. As international travel has reemerged after the pandemic, so have the problems experienced by international visitors to the US. Just over the past few months we have conducted numerous consultations with individuals subject to intrusive CBP searches at the airports, including luggage checks and the contents of telephones.  These searches have led to accusations of unlawful employment (most common), prostitution, drug use, intent to remain in the US beyond the length of permitted stay, intent to marry, and intent to…