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

[carmel34 3,576]

8 hours ago, GreenDoggie said:

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."

Did the officer who did the interview say that a waiver is even an option?  A waiver for misrepresentation is only available at the discretion of the officer, it is not always available.  If in fact a waiver was approved by the officer, then some deeper research into past visa applications is in order here, to identify the source of the misrepresentation, all of the facts, whether it was stating "married" on a previous visa application when in fact the beneficiary was not really married, a visa overstay, it could be many things but most likely related to a previous case via USCIS, or maybe a background check by the FBI that identified something like a criminal history that was not truthfully disclosed.  Good luck, I hope the waiver is available and that you can get to the root cause of the inadmissibility finding.  Having a good attorney should help if you can go down the waiver path.

Edited September 30, 2021 by carmel34

[Mike E 11,732]

8 hours ago, GreenDoggie said:

They asked a lot of question, but how do I know which is what they want to know about?

I am certain that if you post:

 

* each question 

 

* your answer

 

* whether your answer was correct or incorrect

 

that folks here will identify the issue for you.  

[Mike E 11,732]

5 hours ago, pushbrk said:

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.

Wouldn’t  CBP be another applicable agency, if OP made it a port of entry previously and was deemed inadmissible by CBP?

[Boiler 44,953]

7 hours 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?

 

You have a lawyer who has the distinct advantage of knowing the story, we do not.

 

You make it sound like you lied before and then came clean assuming that is the case then telling the truth does not negate the prior lies and you know what the issue is. 

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

23 minutes ago, Boiler said:

You make it sound like you lied before and then came clean assuming that is the case then telling the truth does not negate the prior lies and you know what the issue is. 

If this is an accurate assessment then boiler has hit the nail on the head. Saying “I lied before to (try) get a visa/entry and now admit and am sorry” does not take the misrep away; only a waiver does that. 
 

This is the USCIS manual section dealing with misrep - not sure if it adds anything that you don’t know but for completeness: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-j-chapter-2 (Note that they don’t need to prove you had intent to deceive, just that you knew you were making a false statement ; intent to deceive if proven changes it into fraudulent misrep.)

 

B. Willful Misrepresentation

Inadmissibility based on willful misrepresentation requires a finding that a person willfully misrepresented a material fact. For a person to be inadmissible, the officer must find all of the following elements: 

• The person procured, or sought to procure, a benefit under U.S. immigration laws;
• The person made a false representation; 
• The false representation was willfully made; 
• The false representation was material; and
• The false representation was made to a U.S. government official, generally an immigration or consular officer. [3] 

If all of the above elements are present, then the person is inadmissible for willful misrepresentation. 

If the person succeeded in obtaining the benefit under the INA, he or she would be inadmissible for having procured the benefit by willful misrepresentation. If the attempt was not successful, the person would still be inadmissible for having “sought to procure” the immigration benefit by willful misrepresentation. In each case, evidence of intent to deceive is not required. 

[JeanneAdil 6,400]

you know the reason

you filed a 601 to overcome it

and the embassy has not accepted it

[YYZ&MIA 117]

12 hours ago, GreenDoggie said:

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.

You should request a FOA... It is free. Is this a green card through marriage application because in that case I understand this to mean that they uncovered information that would suggest that you knew the beneficiary or your spouse prior and didn't meet them when you said you met them. 

[Carpe Vinum 2,327]

3 hours ago, JeanneAdil said:

you know the reason

you filed a 601 to overcome it

and the embassy has not accepted it

They are trying to find the exact reason for denial so they can file a 601 waiver.

[pushbrk 12,606]

7 hours ago, Mike E said:

Wouldn’t  CBP be another applicable agency, if OP made it a port of entry previously and was deemed inadmissible by CBP?

Yes, and technically USCIS and CBP are both part of Homeland Security, but, I guess separate agencies.  If CBP, it's usually misrepresenting US Citizenship.  That's lifetime ban territory.

[Karabast39 11]

14 hours ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

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

Per the letter, the 6C1 came from another agency, so that is most likely DHS and could not be from a previous visa application (because that would be the same agency).  The Consular Officer simply upheld the 6C1 as he/she does not have the authority or ability to ignore or magically delete that.  At some point in his life, the applicant was found to be mispresenting himself to a government authority.  If you do not know all about that already, that should be a red flag for you.  

[pushbrk 12,606]

1 hour ago, Karabast39 said:

Per the letter, the 6C1 came from another agency, so that is most likely DHS and could not be from a previous visa application (because that would be the same agency).  The Consular Officer simply upheld the 6C1 as he/she does not have the authority or ability to ignore or magically delete that.  At some point in his life, the applicant was found to be mispresenting himself to a government authority.  If you do not know all about that already, that should be a red flag for you.  

Sounds right.  I would just add that it would be an immigration related government authority, Dept. of State, or Homeland Security/INS/CBP.

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

4 hours ago, pushbrk said:

Yes, and technically USCIS and CBP are both part of Homeland Security, but, I guess separate agencies.  If CBP, it's usually misrepresenting US Citizenship.  That's lifetime ban territory.

I think CBP misrep is usually when people lie about stuff to get into the country (no, I don’t have a girlfriend or plan to work etc), I don’t think misrep about citizenship comes up that often with them?

[jan22 3,018]

5 hours ago, Karabast39 said:

Per the letter, the 6C1 came from another agency, so that is most likely DHS and could not be from a previous visa application (because that would be the same agency).  The Consular Officer simply upheld the 6C1 as he/she does not have the authority or ability to ignore or magically delete that.  At some point in his life, the applicant was found to be mispresenting himself to a government authority.  If you do not know all about that already, that should be a red flag for you.  

Correct.  And, filing a FOIA with the State Department will not yield the information that is the basis of the 6C finding for two reasons:  

1. They likely do not have the information -- they see the ineligibility entered for the person, but usually not the supporting details.  And,
2.  If they actually do have some of the detailed information, State cannot provide it, as it is not their information to release -- that rests with the agency that entered the finding, especially if it is from law enforcement information (CBP, for example). 

[Redro 4,609]

20 hours 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?

 

Did you provide documentation of the crime? Court records and proof the case was dropped? Or did you just explain the case was dropped?

Could this be a possible reason for the denial? 

Edited October 1, 2021 by Kor2USA

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

22 minutes ago, Kor2USA said:

Did you provide documentation of the crime? Court records and proof the case was dropped? Or did you just explain the case was dropped?

Could this be a possible reason for the denial? 

It seems he didn't disclose there was a crime as the case was dropped.