F-1 Visa Denial Reversed

0 min read
F-1 Visa Denial Reversed
Written by
Full Name
Published on
22 January 2021

Facts

After waiting for a whole year, the client was denied an F-1 visa to pursue advanced degree studies at a well-known U.S. university. The U.S. consulate in his home country concluded that he was inadmissible because of a criminal conviction for negligently causing injuries to another person in a road accident. The consulate labeled the client’s conviction a “Crime Involving Moral Turpitude” (CIMT), making him inadmissible to the U.S. under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as amended).

Strategy

After researching the client’s criminal conviction and reading the foreign law statute, it became obvious to me that the consulate was wrong, the visa denial legally flawed, and the inadmissibility finding unsustainable. The U.S. Department of State’s own operations manual listed an example showing that such a conviction would not be a CIMT even if the facts of the client’s case were a lot worse. We were right, the consulate was wrong, and the denial was unfair. That was a good start. However, that left us with a minor obstacle of trying to explain all that to the consulate and to get them to agree with us and reconsider their denial before the client’s university program would begin less than 4 months later. Remember, the consulate already took a whole year to make the wrong decision and we needed them to make the right decision in less than 4 months.

Result

The client submitted a new F-1 visa application and was thoroughly prepared for his new consular interview, armed with my legal memorandum and supporting documents. In advance of his new consular appointment, I took a highly unusual and rather unprecedented step of sending an e-mail to the acting U.S. ambassador in the client's home country and cc’ing the U.S. consul general there, telling them that a serious mistake was made in my client’s case at their post and that they had a duty and an opportunity to correct it. I heard from the consul general the very next day. After a short back and forth via e-mail he agreed to submit an advisory opinion request to the State’s Department's Visa Office in Washington, D.C. Apparently the State Department’s lawyers in Washington agreed with me that the client was admissible and the consulate issued the visa. It took about 5 weeks from the new application to the visa issuance.