Lawyer in New Jersey | Handling a Waiver Based B-1/B-2 Visa Case Involving an ESTA Misrepresentation Finding

During the ESTA filing process, the travel agency completed the application without directly confirming each eligibility question with the applicant, including the question relating to prior criminal history, and incorrectly selected a negative response. 

The applicant later discovered that a decades old minor traffic related offense existed on her record, which had no immigration relevance on its own but became legally significant due to the inaccurate ESTA response. 

At the B-1/B-2 visa interview, the consular officer treated the discrepancy as a potential willful misrepresentation, a determination that carries serious immigration consequences regardless of the applicant’s age, purpose of travel, or lack of intent.

After the ESTA denial, a formal criminal record check confirmed a single minor traffic related violation that did not involve moral turpitude, violence, or controlled substances, and which under normal circumstances would not bar entry to the United States.

However, the issue before the consular officer was not the underlying offense itself but the perceived false statement made during the ESTA process, leading to a finding that required a discretionary waiver before visa issuance could be considered. 

At this stage, the applicant was formally instructed to pursue a waiver of inadmissibility, prompting the engagement of a lawyer in New Jersey experienced in New York–area consular practice.

Under federal immigration principles applied uniformly across consular posts, including those serving the New York region, a finding of misrepresentation requires both a false statement and intent to deceive a U.S. government official. 

The lawyer in New Jersey structured the submission to demonstrate that the applicant lacked both knowledge and intent, supported by consistent personal history, advanced age, lack of prior U.S. immigration violations, and complete transparency once the issue was identified. 

This analytical distinction was critical in preventing the matter from being characterized as a pattern of deception rather than an isolated procedural error.

Although the legal argument challenged the misrepresentation finding, the strategy simultaneously accepted the practical necessity of pursuing a waiver as directed by the consulate, ensuring procedural compliance without conceding moral fault. 

The waiver submission emphasized humanitarian considerations, the applicant’s limited travel purpose, strong family ties abroad, absence of any risk to public safety, and the disproportionate hardship caused by a permanent bar based on a clerical mistake. 

This dual track approach is commonly employed by a lawyer in New Jersey when addressing New York–based consular decisions where discretionary relief is available but narrowly applied.

Rather than attempting to relitigate the ESTA denial itself, the submission focused on restoring credibility by demonstrating immediate corrective action once the error was discovered. 

The lawyer in New Jersey ensured that all supporting statements were internally consistent, corroborated by objective records, and aligned with prior disclosures, reducing the risk that the case would be perceived as evolving or opportunistic. 

This approach is particularly important in New York–region consular posts, where officers are accustomed to high volume applications and rely heavily on perceived applicant credibility.

While the error originated with a travel agency, the legal framing avoided placing blame in a manner that could appear evasive, instead acknowledging the mistake while clearly allocating responsibility for the technical misstatement. 

By doing so, the case avoided the impression that the applicant was attempting to avoid accountability, a factor that often negatively influences discretionary outcomes. 

This balance is a key element of waiver advocacy practiced by a lawyer in New Jersey familiar with New York consular expectations.

The matter serves as a cautionary example for travelers relying on intermediaries for U.S. immigration filings, as inaccuracies can trigger consequences far beyond the scope of the original application. 

A lawyer in New Jersey with experience in New York–based consular processing can play a decisive role in reframing such cases, ensuring that isolated errors do not result in permanent exclusion absent genuine fraud or security concerns.

By aligning the waiver strategy with federal standards while remaining sensitive to New York–area consular practices, the case was positioned for a fair discretionary review rather than summary refusal. 

The outcome reinforces that waiver based visitor visa cases are not solely about statutory eligibility, but about presenting a coherent, credible narrative that allows consular officers to exercise discretion within lawful bounds.