Our client came to the United States the way thousands of visitors do every year — on a B-1/B-2 tourist visa, planning to see family and head home. She had no plans to work. She had no plans to stay.
Then a friend mentioned an agency. The agency promised a path: change status to F-1, and you can work legally while the application is pending. It sounded ideal. The agency filled out the paperwork. She signed where they told her to sign. She paid her taxes on every dollar she earned.
By the time she walked into our office — married to a U.S. citizen and applying for a green card — that signature had become the single biggest obstacle standing between her and lawful permanent residence.
Most people in this situation assume the problem is the unauthorized work itself. It actually isn’t.
Under INA § 245(c), unauthorized employment normally bars adjustment of status — but that bar is forgiven for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Spouses, parents, and unmarried children under 21 of U.S. citizens can adjust despite prior unauthorized work. Our client, married to a U.S. citizen, fell squarely into that category. The work, on its own, was not the problem.
The problem was the Form I-539. Under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), any noncitizen who, by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, seeks to procure an immigration benefit is inadmissible absent a waiver. A change of status under Form I-539 is an immigration benefit. False answers on that form about employment or status compliance are squarely within § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) — and unlike the § 245(c) bar, this ground has no immediate relative exception. It is a lifetime bar, waivable through an I-601 waiver.
This is why the case needed a waiver. Not because she worked. Because of what the I-539 said about whether she worked.
The moment we identified the misrepresentation exposure on the prior I-539, we built the I-601 waiver package proactively — before USCIS raised it. A proactive waiver does three things a reactive one cannot. It controls the narrative: USCIS reads our framing of the facts first, rather than allowing the case narrative to develop reactively during adjudication. It removes uncertainty from the interview: the couple walks in knowing the issue is already addressed in writing. And it dramatically shortens the timeline: a reactive RFE can add 6 to 18 months, while a proactive waiver gets adjudicated alongside the underlying petition.
The waiver itself centered on the standard that matters: extreme hardship to the qualifying U.S. citizen spouse. We documented the husband’s health conditions and his dependency on his wife for daily caregiving, the couple’s financial reality, the emotional toll of prior long-distance separation, and the real-world consequences of forcing the couple apart. Every claim was supported. Every assertion was tied to evidence. Nothing was left for USCIS to question.
While the I-601 was still pending, USCIS scheduled the marriage-based adjustment interview. This is the moment most couples dread — and the moment where unrepresented or under-prepared couples lose otherwise winnable cases.
We did not let that happen.
We sat down with the couple in advance, walked through every category of question they would face — relationship bona fides, immigration history, the agency, the I-539, the unauthorized work — and practiced how to answer questions clearly, consistently, and truthfully. Our attorney attended the interview alongside them.
The interview went well. The officer’s concerns were addressed in real time, and the underlying marriage petition was approved.
The waiver was filed in January 2026. It was approved in March 2026 — roughly two months later.
Shortly after the waiver approval, USCIS approved the adjustment of status. Our client received her lawful permanent resident status. The couple, who had spent years navigating long-distance separation and immigration anxiety, finally had something they had been waiting for: certainty.
If any of the following sounds familiar, this case is directly relevant to yours:
• An agency, “consultant,” or notario filed a Form I-539 for you that you didn’t fully review
• You entered on a B-1/B-2 visa, worked without authorization, and the I-539 or another USCIS form didn’t reflect that work accurately
• You filed taxes on unauthorized earnings while a separate immigration form denied employment
• You are married to (or engaged to) a U.S. citizen and want to file for adjustment of status with this history in your file
• USCIS has already issued an RFE or NOID raising fraud or willful misrepresentation
• You are considering filing without an attorney and hoping USCIS doesn’t notice
The honest answer: USCIS will notice. The unauthorized employment is often not the bar. What was filed about the employment usually is. The question is not whether the issue comes up. The question is whether the case has been strategically prepared to address the issue before USCIS raises it.
At the Law Offices of Sabrina Li, we represent clients across the country in the most complex marriage-based immigration matters — I-601 waivers, INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) misrepresentation findings, agency-prepared filings gone wrong, adjustment of status complications, and consular processing after a prior denial. Every case we take is prepared with the same standard reflected in this success story: proactive strategy, exhaustive documentation, and direct attorney representation from filing through approval. If you are facing inadmissibility concerns or any complication in your marriage-based green card case, we invite you to contact our office for a confidential consultation.
Phone: (213) 375-8096
Email: info@sabrinali.law
Hours: Mon-Fri, 9:00AM - 5:00PM PT (Except Public Holidays)
