1. Immigration and Nationality Act Washington, D.C. | Background and Visa History
The applicant, referred to as Q, was a long established professional residing abroad who had lawfully held multiple U.S. nonimmigrant visas over several years.
Her prior travel history reflected consistent compliance with visa conditions and no record of immigration violations under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
In early 2019, she obtained a new visitor visa and traveled to the United States for the stated purpose of visiting immediate family members residing in Washington, D.C.
Prior Compliance and Lawful Entry Record
Q’s immigration file showed repeated lawful admissions, timely departures, and full disclosure during visa applications.
There was no evidence of prior overstays, unauthorized employment, or misrepresentation under INA standards.
This background later became critical in assessing whether the government’s fraud determination could be legally sustained.
2. Immigration and Nationality Act Washington, D.C. | Medical Event During Pandemic Period
Shortly after entry, global travel conditions changed dramatically due to the COVID 19 pandemic, significantly disrupting international mobility.
During this period, Q experienced an unexpected medical event and gave birth in a U.S. hospital, after which all medical expenses were paid in full without reliance on public benefits.
She departed the United States within months, once international travel routes stabilized.
Distinction from Prohibited Birth Tourism Conduct
At the time Q’s visa was issued, the Department of State’s birth tourism restrictions had not yet taken effect.
The January 2020 amendment to 22 C.F.R. § 41.31 explicitly applies only to visas issued on or after its effective date.
Accordingly, no statutory or regulatory provision under the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibited Q’s conduct at the time of visa issuance or entry.
3. Immigration and Nationality Act Washington, D.C. | Erroneous Application of INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i)
Despite the above facts, a consular officer later determined that Q had engaged in willful misrepresentation of a material fact.
Relying on Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), the officer imposed a lifetime inadmissibility finding, effectively barring Q from future U.S. entry.
This provision, often described as one of the most severe penalties under the Immigration and Nationality Act, carries permanent consequences absent a waiver.
Legal Deficiency in the Fraud Determination
The record lacked evidence of intent to deceive at the time of visa application or entry.
No false statements were identified, and no material facts were concealed under the statutory definition of willful misrepresentation.
Moreover, retroactive application of later issued policy guidance directly contradicted established principles of administrative and immigration law.
4. Immigration and Nationality Act Washington, D.C. | Reconsideration and Resolution
A comprehensive submission was prepared outlining the full chronology, supported by documentary evidence and legal analysis grounded in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The filing emphasized the non retroactivity of the birth tourism rule, the absence of fraudulent intent, and controlling federal authority governing consular determinations.
Upon review, the Department of State withdrew the INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding in its entirety.
Restoration of Admissibility Under Federal Immigration Law
The permanent bar was lifted without the need for a waiver application.
Q’s immigration record was corrected to reflect no finding of fraud or misrepresentation.
This outcome reaffirmed the importance of precise statutory interpretation and procedural accountability within Washington, D.C. immigration practice.
06 Jan, 2026
