We recently received approval for a 212(d)(3) non-immigrant waiver prepared on behalf of a Mexican client who was subject to a lifetime bar from the United States due to a charge of fraud/misrepresentation pursuant to INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i). Our client was also expeditiously removed twice from the United States and subject to the 20 years bar pursuant to INA 212(a)(9)(A)(i).
I prepared a comprehensive 212(d)(3) non-immigrant waiver in the form of a legal brief discussing the three legal factors set forth by Matter of Hranka, 16 I&N Dec. 491 (BIA 1978).
In the case, Matter of Hranka, 16 I&N Dec. 491 (BIA 1978), the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed a district director’s denial of a waiver application filed by a Canadian woman who had been deported for engaging in prostitution and admitted to previous heroin use. She filed her application only two years after having been deported. She requested entry to visit relatives and engage in various tourist activities.
In overturning the district director’s decision to deny the application, the BIA accepted as proof of rehabilitation letters from the applicant’s mother, and the principal of the high school the applicant had attended, who is a psychologist. It held that the applicant’s reasons for entering the United States need not be compelling. The BIA articulated three criteria for granting a waiver under INA 212(d)(3)
1. The risks of harm in admitting the applicant;
2. The seriousness of the acts that caused the inadmissibility; and
3. The importance of the applicant’s reason for seeking entry.
Both Department of State and the Foreign Affairs Manual specify that any nonimmigrant may request a waiver as long as his or her presence would not be detrimental to the United States. They provide that “while the exercise of discretion and good judgment is essential, generally, consular officers may recommend waivers for any legitimate purpose such as family visits, medical treatment (whether or not available abroad), business conferences, tourism, etc.” See 22 CFR 40.301 Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) 40.301 N3. Furthermore, the Admissibility Review Office has confirmed that it will follow and adhere to Matter of Hranka in adjudicating requests for INA 212(d)(3) waivers.
In my client’s case, I addressed each of the factors laid out by Matter of Hranka while emphasizing the importance of my client’s role in the multinational company he now worked for; the critical nature of the training he needed to receive in the United States for his professional career as well as for his employer (which held direct ramifications for benefiting the economic welfare of the United States); previous Dept. of State error that directly led to his second expedited removal from the U.S.; his ties to Mexico including his wife and children; and his history of law-abiding and ethical behavior which was supported by numerous affidavits from his colleagues and friends.
Based upon these factors, my client was approved for the 212(d)(3) non-immigrant waiver by the Admissibility Review Office in Washington D.C., and subsequently, for the B-1 Visitor Visa. He is now able to enter the United States to participate in training mandated by his company and continue his successful career with a respected multinational corporation.
Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict the outcome of any future legal matter.