Our client had built an extraordinary life in the United States—advanced degrees from top universities, a career at leading technology companies, and years of community service. She was also the spouse of an approved employment-based (EB-2) immigrant worker, which put a green card within reach. But one chapter from years earlier threatened to erase all of it: a short-term job she took during her STEM OPT training—at a technology startup called Smoothies Technology—had later been recast by the government as immigration fraud, resulting in a finding of inadmissibility for willful misrepresentation. That finding had already cost her visa after visa at U.S. consulates abroad. Rather than treat it as a permanent dead end, we confronted it directly in her adjustment-of-status application—arguing that no willful, material misrepresentation had ever occurred. USCIS agreed, and in early 2026 approved her green card.
On paper, our client was an ideal permanent-resident candidate. She held a master’s degree and an MBA from two of the country’s most respected universities, had worked for well-known technology companies, and had volunteered and donated to charitable causes for more than a decade.
But eligibility on paper is not the same as approval. A single finding in her history—an allegation of fraud or willful misrepresentation—hung over the entire case. Left unaddressed, that kind of finding does not just delay a green card. It can end one permanently.
Years earlier, during her post-graduation STEM OPT training period, our client took a project-based role with Smoothies Technology. She worked at Smoothies Technology until the job ended more than a decade ago.
Only much later did that ordinary early-career episode resurface—reinterpreted by consular officers as evidence that she had misrepresented her employment. From that reinterpretation flowed a finding of inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), the statute that bars anyone who, by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, seeks to procure an immigration benefit.
A misrepresentation finding under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) is one of the most serious obstacles in immigration law because it is, in effect, permanent. Unlike many grounds that expire with time, this bar generally lasts for life unless the applicant either obtains a waiver (such as a Form I-601, which requires a qualifying relative and a favorable exercise of discretion) or successfully shows that the finding should never have applied in the first place.
Crucially, the law does not punish innocent mistakes. To trigger the bar, a misrepresentation must be willful (knowing and deliberate, not accidental or the product of a good-faith misunderstanding) and material (capable of affecting the government’s decision). That distinction—between a genuine error made in good faith and a deliberate lie—was the heart of our client’s case.
The human cost of the finding was not theoretical. Because of it, our client was refused a dependent visa at a U.S. consulate abroad, cited under both the misrepresentation ground and the general nonimmigrant-intent provision, INA § 214(b). A second consular interview ended in another refusal on the same grounds.
Only through persistence—and a 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver, a discretionary tool that can restore lawful entry despite an inadmissibility finding—was she able to return to the United States and, in 2023, obtain a dependent visa to rejoin her spouse. That waiver kept her family together, but it did not erase the underlying finding. To become a permanent resident, she still had to overcome the misrepresentation ground itself.
When her husband’s EB-2 petition was approved and a visa number became available, we filed her Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, in mid-2025.
The filing did more than start the adjudication clock. It also created a strategic opening. In an adjustment-of-status case, USCIS makes its own, independent determination of admissibility—it is not bound by a consular officer’s earlier conclusion. That meant we could ask USCIS to look at the facts fresh, rather than inherit a finding we believed was wrong from the start.
The centerpiece of the filing was a detailed legal addendum that met the misrepresentation allegation directly instead of hoping it would go unnoticed. We laid out the timeline of the STEM OPT employment and showed that our client had acted in good faith at every step.
From there, we tied the facts to the legal standard. A § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar requires a willful and material misrepresentation. Our client had made neither. We paired that legal argument with a full portrait of who she is—her education, her professional record, and her long history of volunteering and giving—so the adjudicator could see a credible person whose account fit her character.
In early 2026—roughly six months after filing—USCIS approved our client’s Form I-485 and granted her lawful permanent resident status. The misrepresentation finding that had blocked her at consulate after consulate did not block her green card. She emerged as a permanent resident—free to live and work in the United States, reunited with her spouse on stable footing, and on the path toward U.S. citizenship.
If this case offers a single lesson, it is this: a finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation is serious, but it is not automatically permanent, and it is not always correct. Consular refusals are not the last word in a later adjustment case, where USCIS decides admissibility for itself. Where a person acted in good faith and made no knowing, material misrepresentation, the right response may be to challenge the finding directly—supported by a careful factual record and, when appropriate, a waiver as an alternative. Early, thorough preparation can turn a fact that looks disqualifying into one that can be overcome.
Smoothies Technology is not an isolated name. Over the past several years, federal investigators and USCIS have scrutinized a number of companies alleged to have operated as “shell” or “paper” employers—businesses that existed largely to provide fake or nominal jobs so that F-1 students could appear to maintain their status during Curricular Practical Training (CPT) or Optional Practical Training (OPT). When USCIS or a consular officer connects an applicant to one of these employers, it can lead to a finding of inadmissibility for fraud or willful misrepresentation under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i)—exactly the obstacle our client faced.
Companies identified in the earlier wave of these investigations include:
More recently identified entities following the same pattern include:
This list is not exhaustive, and USCIS continues to identify additional entities fitting the same pattern. Being associated with a company on this list does not automatically mean you committed fraud or that you are barred from a green card. Many students accepted these positions in good faith, relied on their school’s authorization and the employer’s representations, and had no way of knowing the company was under scrutiny. As our client’s case shows, a § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding tied to one of these employers can often be challenged—by showing there was no willful, material misrepresentation—or, where appropriate, addressed through a waiver. If you worked for one of these companies during CPT or OPT and are worried about a visa refusal, a Request for Evidence, or a green card application, it is worth reviewing your situation with experienced immigration counsel before you file or travel.
Often, yes. Depending on the facts, you may be able to show that no willful, material misrepresentation actually occurred—so the bar should not apply—or you may qualify for a waiver such as Form I-601. Because this ground can otherwise be permanent, these cases should be evaluated carefully and individually.
The § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar generally has no expiration date, which is why it is so serious. But a ground of inadmissibility is not the same as a permanent, unfixable bar. It can sometimes be waived, and in some cases it can be overcome by showing the finding was wrong in the first place.
Yes. Employment during OPT or STEM OPT—especially unpaid work, startups, or roles later questioned by an officer—can resurface years afterward at a visa interview or in a green-card case. If your history includes anything a consular officer questioned, it is wise to address it proactively with counsel rather than wait for it to surface.
Not necessarily. In an adjustment-of-status case, USCIS makes its own independent determination of admissibility and is not bound by a consular officer’s earlier conclusion. That can create an opportunity to present the facts fresh and ask for a different result. I worked at Findream, Sinocontech, Smoothies Technology, or another company on the USCIS list—can I still get a green card? Possibly, yes. Being connected to one of these employers does not automatically make you inadmissible. If you accepted the position in good faith and made no knowing, material misrepresentation, that finding can often be challenged, and in some cases a waiver may be available. These cases are fact-specific and high-stakes, so it is wise to consult experienced immigration counsel before filing a new application or traveling.
It varies widely by service center, category, visa-number availability, and the complexity of any inadmissibility issue. Building a complete, well-documented filing from the start—and addressing any inadmissibility ground head-on—helps keep the case on track. Nationwide Representation in Inadmissibility and Employment-Based Green Card Cases
At the Law Offices of Sabrina Li, we regularly handle complex immigration matters involving inadmissibility findings—including fraud and willful misrepresentation under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i)—paired with employment-based adjustment of status. Immigration law is federal law, so from our offices in Los Angeles and Dallas, we represent clients throughout the United States.
Are you worried that a past visa refusal, a misrepresentation finding, or an old work-authorization issue will block your green card? As this case shows, such a finding can often be addressed and overcome with the right strategy and a well-built record. Every case turns on its own facts and evidence, and results vary; we would be glad to review your specific situation.
Phone: (213) 375-8096
Email: info@sabrinali.law
Hours: Mon-Fri, 9:00AM - 5:00PM PT (Except Public Holidays)
