No detail given on Misrepresentation 212(a)(6)(C)(I) on the refusal letter

[GreenDoggie 9]

Received a notice from the US embassy that the visa was refused on the basis of Misrepresentation 212(a)(6)(C)(I). The part of the refusal letter where the details of 212(a)(6)(C)(I) was left BLANK. My lawyer asked twice via email for details so she can craft an appropriate response for the I-601 waiver. All she got from the embassy was quote, "212(a)(6)(C)(I) was already associated with the beneficiary from another agency’s finding."

 

When asking for clarification, the embassy repeated this sentence-literally. The embassy refuses to give any details, forcing my lawyer to craft a waiver in the dark. 

 

My lawyer is looking back in the record to see what the embassy can possibly mean by "another agency's finding" and crafting a wavier based on that. I feel that the embassy is deliberately being ambiguous to set us up for failure. 

 

Can they do this legally? They deny, and give no details about it. I think they're making this up, hoping that I'll just give up and go away. 

 

What can/should be done?
 

Thanks in advance.

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

What happened during the interview?

They must have mentioned something, questioned you regarding a specific thing.

[GreenDoggie 9]

Thank you for asking. 

 

They asked a lot of question, but how do I know which is what they want to know about? On the I-601, if I take a guess about what they're asking about and I get it wrong, won't they use that as ground for denial? I feel like that's how they're setting me up for failure.

 

It said on the denial letter: "212(a)(6)(C)(I) was already associated with the beneficiary from another agency’s finding." Despite asking for specifics about this, they refused to say anything. Maybe they're keeping it obscure because they don't have solid reasoning for outright denial and hope I'll go away?

 

I've been looking in the forum, but I have yet to find a case where the reason for 212(a)(6)(C)(I) is left blank. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by GreenDoggie

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

They must have solid evidence to determine inadmissibility due to misrepresentation.

 

Try going through your interview in detail: was there anything the interviewing agent insisted on? If you were in the US before, criminal records, previous applications?

[PaulaCJohnny 713]

Ask your lawyer to request FOIA. This way you can have all the information and try to figure it out.

 

good luck 

[Carpe Vinum 2,327]

Which embassy?

[GreenDoggie 9]

48 minutes ago, Carpe Vinum said:

Which embassy?

Tokyo, Japan

[GreenDoggie 9]

1 hour ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

They must have solid evidence to determine inadmissibility due to misrepresentation.

 

Try going through your interview in detail: was there anything the interviewing agent insisted on? If you were in the US before, criminal records, previous applications?

Yes, but which one are they asking about? You'd think they tell you, unless they're being deliberately difficult. 

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

9 minutes ago, GreenDoggie said:

Yes, but which one are they asking about? You'd think they tell you, unless they're being deliberately difficult. 

Which one? So there is indeed misrepresentation in your case?

[GreenDoggie 9]

14 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

Which one? So there is indeed misrepresentation in your case?

I thought you asked if I been in the US before; if there's a criminal record (case which got dropped, so no); and a previous application. 

 

I meant yes to some of them, and those were asked during the interview. None of them is a misrepresentation because I explained it in details in the application (in the I-130, I think?) and during the interview. It's not a misrepresentation if I'd been upfront and truthful about everything, no?

 

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

5 minutes ago, GreenDoggie said:

I thought you asked if I been in the US before; if there's a criminal record (case which got dropped, so no); and a previous application. 

 

I meant yes to some of them, and those were asked during the interview. None of them is a misrepresentation because I explained it in details in the application (in the I-130, I think?) and during the interview. It's not a misrepresentation if I'd been upfront and truthful about everything, no?

 

If you've had previous applications, the misrepresentation can be related to that old one, not necessarily the most recent one.

[GreenDoggie 9]

10 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

If you've had previous applications, the misrepresentation can be related to that old one, not necessarily the most recent one.

It could be, although I don't know how, since I've been truthful and upfront about everything...But that the thing: What if it's NOT about that, and I wrote the I-601 based on it? Won't they deny it because I didn't give them what they were looking for? Also, if I told them everything already, what more can I add? 

 

That's why I think they're setting me up to fail, and I got to find another way, to which I don't know yet. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by GreenDoggie

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

8 minutes ago, GreenDoggie said:

It could be, although I don't know how, since I've been truthful and upfront about everything...But that the thing: What if it's NOT about that, and I wrote the I-601 based on it? Won't they deny it because I didn't give them what they were looking for? Also, if I told them everything already, what more can I add? 

 

That's why I think they're setting me up to fail, and I got to find another way, which I don't know yet. 

There are two options: challenging the decision providing evidence that there is no actual misrepresentation or filing a hardship waiver which implies there was indeed misrepresentation.

 

If you are certain there is no misrepresentation AT ALL, your attorney must pressure the embassy into disclosing the specifics.

 

As mentioned by another member, your lawyer can make a FOIA request to find out exactly what misrepresentation they're referring to.

Another choice -that I found on a law firm website- is doing what is described in the following text: 

"Case of B.A.

It was a mystery to B: why had the consulate in Italy permanently barred her from the United States under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)? We were curious also, because after talking to her in great detail, we could not understand. So we sent a short inquiry to the consulate, only asking for the factual basis of the decision. After not receiving a response, we sent another inquiry. When the consulate refused to respond, we brought this recalcitrance to the attention of Washington and raised the issue of this draconian decision: why did the consulate permanently bar B? After a week, Washington responded that the consulate “carefully” reconsidered its decision and decided to reverse it. The 6C decision was rescinded."

Edited September 30, 2021 by Allaboutwaiting

[GreenDoggie 9]

Appreciate the help.

 

This may sound like I'm just bitching, but why wouldn't they straight-up tell me what they perceive to be the misrepresentation other than wanting to be difficult, or trying to make me fail? If they MUST have evidence for misrepresentation, why don't they disclose it? Doesn't it work like that in court?

 

They don't have the obligation to disclose anything? Then they are just being difficult; no intention to help. 

 

Anyways...Thank you. 

[pushbrk 12,618]

In cases like this, it is common that the person denied the visa, has a pretty good idea what was misrepresented in the past.  The only other applicable agency is USCIS.