Nine years after he was removed from the U.S., due to a serious drug offense, our client received a Consent to Reapply for Admission and 212(d)(3) waiver for temporary visits. He thought it was impossible for him to come back, until I explained what he needed to do.

This is a true success story: Form I-212 and I-192 Approvals Allowing Canadian Citizen with a Removal Order and Crime-Related Bars to Visit the U.S.

Hello and welcome to The Legal Immigrant. My name is Dyan Williams and I am a U.S. immigration attorney at Dyan Willliams Law. I can help you get a waiver for crime-related bars if you’re eligible, you can show rehabilitation, and you have lawful reasons to enter the U.S.

My client, a Canadian citizen, wished to enter the U.S. to reunite with his U.S. citizen parents and sibling. But a decade-old conviction for Conspiracy to Import ecstasy into the U.S. barred him on three criminal grounds under INA 212(a)(2). His conviction amounted to a crime involving moral turpitude, INA 212(a)(2)(A)(I), a controlled substance violation, INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), and a controlled substance trafficking offense, INA 212(a)(2)(C).

He also had a permanent bar under INA 212(a)(9)(A)(ii) because controlled substance trafficking is an aggravated felony under U.S. immigration law AND he was issued a removal order by an Immigration Judge.

As a result of his criminal offense and the removal order, his permanent residence was revoked. Following his release from prison, he was sent back to Canada.

About 5 years later, he sent me an email describing his situation and asking whether he could lawfully re-enter the U.S. to be with his U.S. citizen family.

In the first consultation, I told him that he is disqualified from permanent residence because the INA 212(a)(2)(A) bars are for a lifetime and he is not eligible for the Form I-601 waiver of inadmissibility.

INA 212(h) allows immigrant visa or green card applicants, who are barred under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), to apply for the Form I-601 waiver only if their controlled substance violation involved a single offense related to simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana. I also explained there is no immigrant waiver for an INA 212(a)(2)(C) bar related to a controlled substance trafficking offense.

I confirmed there was a nonimmigrant path for him to make temporary U.S. visits. Namely, he needed an approved Form I-212 (Consent to Reapply for Admission due to removal order with aggravated felony conviction) and an approved Form I-192 (212(d)(3) waiver due to the three crime-related bars).

He asked if I could help him with his waiver applications. I declined to offer representation because, at that point, I determined the favorable factors did not outweigh the negatives. I did, however, advise him on the action steps and positive changes he needed to make before he applied for the waivers.

About a year later, he sent me an email outlining how he had followed up on my recommendations. I agreed to have him do a second consultation, in which we discussed how he had advanced in his profession, provided vital community service, and bought residential property to strengthen his ties to Canada. These changes were not only necessary to prove positive factors, but also to show he would timely depart the U.S. following authorized visits.

After I determined he had a viable case, I offered representation in his Form I-212 and I-192 applications. I advised him on the information and documents to submit to demonstrate strong ties abroad, genuine reasons for seeking temporary U.S., visits, deep regret for his criminal offense, and full rehabilitation to create no risk of harm to the U.S. community. I also helped him finalize his written testimony to show how he qualified for and deserved to get requested relief. I wrote a legal memorandum explaining the facts, evidence, laws, and policies to support the waiver requests. I answered his questions about the filing process and procedural steps for the applications.

As a Canadian citizen, he was allowed to file for the Consent to Reapply for Admission and 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver directly with CBP through the eSAFE online system. Canadians may present their passport and do not need a visitor visa to request entry to the U.S. for temporary visits. Therefore, he did not have to apply for the visa at the U.S. Consulate and receive their recommendation for the waiver requests to be submitted to CBP. The direct filing process for Canadian citizens removes one big stumbling block.

Nonimmigrant visa applicants who need a CTR or 212(d)(3) waiver are not required to submit the official Form I-212 and Form I-192. But they should present supporting documents at the visa interview before the U.S. Consulate. The Consulate may then forward these documents, electronically, to the CBP, if they make a favorable recommendation.

Within 6 months of the filing, my client received a decision from CBP approving both his Form I-212 and I-192 applications. He now has a Consent to Reapply for Admission and 212(d)(3) waiver to make temporary U.S. visits. Although they will expire, he can expect his future waiver requests to be approved so long as there are no new negative factors to consider.

After he finally entered the U.S. with his Canada passport and waiver grants, he made a surprise visit to his parents. He sent me a video showing how excited and happy his mom was when he appeared at her doorstep.

This is a true success story at Dyan Williams Law.

If you found value in this episode, hit the like, share and subscribe buttons. For more information, check out our website at dyanwilliamslaw.com. To request a consultation, you may send an email inquiry to info@dyanwilliamslaw.com. Be sure to describe why you are barred from the U.S. and the type of U.S. visa or admission you seek.

This content is general information and is for educational purposes only. It is based on current U.S. immigration laws, regulations and policies that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each case is different and even cases that seem similar can have different outcomes. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.