In our March 2015 edition of MurthyIndiaBulletin we had reported how MISPL helped a client to remove finding of inadmissibility under § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). We are happy to report that we have been able to help another deserving client avoid a potential ten-year bar! We extend our gratitude to our client who has magnanimously given us the permission to share this success story for the benefit of several others who may be facing a similar situation. As always, we at MISPL keep all client information in strict confidence. Any case-specific information provided in this article is with the express prior permission of the client.

Background

In June 2012, our client returned to the U.S. with his recently approved H1B visa and i-797A approval notice both valid until end April, 2015 to continue his employment pursuant to H1B status. Generally, H1B applicants are issued i-94 for the validity of i-797 approval notice. In the instance case, the customs and border protection (CBP) officer at Port of Entry had issued a truncated i-94, for the validity of his passport – until late October, 2015. This fact was not communicated to the applicant and little did he know about his shortened i-94. In October 2014, the truncated i-94 was noticed by his employer’s immigration attorney while preparing his extension filings. Effectively, since one would generally be considered unlawfully present if s/he stays beyond the validity of i-94, the client would have potentially triggered a 10 year bar by leaving the United States. The employer’s immigration attorney immediately filed his H1B extension with a “Nunc Pro Tunc” (NPT) requesting USCIS to exercise its discretion and the delay in filing an extension, based on the extraordinary circumstances. In short, NPT is a request to grant backdated reinstatement of one’s status. The H1B was approved, however, unfortunately, the request for extension and NPT was denied. The applicant immediately left the country and thereby potentially triggered a 10-year inadmissibility (bar) to re-enter the U.S. The employer’s attorney had prepared a waiver request pursuant to INA §212(d)(3)(A).

MISPL Helps Avoid Inadmissibility without Requiring a Waiver

The applicant sought MISPL’s assistance to present his H1B visa application and Waiver request at the U.S. Consulate in India. Attorneys at MISPL after reviewing the complete case background discovered that the facts of the case fit into the exceptions provided Legacy INS (USCIS) at an unaudited Legacy INS / AILA Liaison meeting in 2001. After careful consideration of the underlying facts and the arguments made by Attorneys at MISPL, the consulate exercised its discretion and issued a visa without any inadmissibility.

Conclusion

Our happiness and contentment lies in the fact that our client was able to travel back and resume employment without any further complication / issues at the port of entry, contrary to the original understanding of the Client regarding his situation. We take this opportunity to urge non-immigrant travelers to review the I-94 upon entry into the United States and take cognizance of the validity. If one is traveling pursuant to H or L status and a truncated / shortened I-94 is issued, based on validity of one’s passport, s/he should take efforts to renew the passport and address the validity of I-94 appropriately. This will avoid potential delays and confusion at a later date.