(MUMBAI, INDIA) — The most effective defense for many visitors accused of unauthorized employment is to show that the activity did not meet the legal definition of “work” in the United States, or—if a violation occurred—to limit the damage by avoiding any fraud finding and preparing for future reentry options.
The warning issued Thursday, Jan. 8, 2026, by the U.S. Consulate General Mumbai put renewed focus on a recurring enforcement problem: travelers who enter on a B1/B2 visa but then perform services that U.S. authorities treat as employment. The Consulate’s message—shared on official social media—stressed that business meetings and contract negotiations may be allowed, but working is not, and violations can trigger removal and long-term inadmissibility consequences.
Below is a defense-focused legal playbook that immigration attorneys commonly assess when a B1/B2 holder is accused of working without authorization, whether the case arises at a port of entry, during a stay, or after departure when seeking a new visa.
1) Core defense: argue the conduct was permissible “visitor” activity
Legal frame: what B-1/B-2 visitors may do
Visitor classification is governed by INA § 101(a)(15)(B). The implementing regulation provides that a B-1 visitor is coming temporarily for business, while B-2 is for tourism. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(b). In practice, the question is whether the person engaged in activities consistent with a temporary visit, without entering the U.S. labor market.
Government adjudicators often focus on whether the visitor:
– Performed productive work for a U.S. entity, or
– Provided services in the U.S. that a U.S. worker would normally perform, or
– Received U.S.-source compensation tied to services performed in the United States.
A helpful precedent is Matter of Hira, 11 I&N Dec. 824 (BIA 1966; A.G. 1966), which recognized that certain commercial activities can fit within B-1 where the person remains employed and paid abroad and the U.S. visit is temporary and limited in scope.
Practical defense themes
Common themes include:
– The activity was limited to meetings, consultations, training, or contract discussions.
– The visitor remained employed abroad, and any salary was paid abroad.
– Any reimbursement was limited to expenses, not wages for U.S. labor.
– The visit had a defined itinerary and short duration.
Because enforcement increasingly looks to online profiles, a defense also addresses inconsistencies between claimed visitor intent and public professional marketing.
Callout — High-risk fact pattern
If the traveler performed hands-on services in the U.S. for a U.S. customer, promoted those services online, or was paid by a U.S. entity, officers may view it as employment. Seek counsel before speaking to CBP or scheduling a new visa interview.
2) If there was a violation: prioritize “no fraud / no willful misrepresentation”
even when unauthorized employment is difficult to contest, a second line of defense is limiting the legal consequence. The worst outcomes often flow from a fraud or misrepresentation finding, not only the work itself.
Why fraud matters
A finding under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) (fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact to obtain a visa, admission, or other benefit) can create a lifetime inadmissibility bar, unless a waiver is available.
By contrast, unauthorized employment alone may trigger removal issues and future skepticism, but it does not always create a permanent bar by itself. The defense therefore emphasizes:
– No preplanned intent to work at the time of visa application or entry.
– No false statement to CBP or a consular officer.
– No falsified documents, pay records, or fabricated itinerary.
Attorneys often distinguish bad judgment from willful deception. That distinction can be decisive in later consular processing.
3) Eligibility and procedure: where the case is being fought matters
Defense options differ depending on posture.
A) At the airport (CBP inspection)
If CBP believes the traveler will violate status, CBP can refuse admission and may order expedited removal in some cases. Expedited removal can carry a five-year bar. See INA § 235(b)(1).
In this setting, counsel’s role is often preventive. Travelers may request to withdraw an application for admission, but that is discretionary and fact-dependent. Statements made at inspection can echo for years.
B) Inside the U.S. (ICE / removal proceedings)
If ICE charges removability, the person may be placed in removal proceedings under INA § 240. The defense may:
– Contest the factual allegations,
– Challenge whether conduct was “employment,” and
– Evaluate eligibility for any relief.
Note that B1/B2 visitors generally have limited relief options. If the person lacks a pathway like family-based relief, the strategy often becomes damage control and future admissibility planning.
C) Outside the U.S. (consular processing)
Many B1/B2 problems surface later at a new visa interview. Consular officers can deny under INA § 214(b) (insufficient ties) or other grounds, and can refer cases for possible revocation review. A well-prepared record can matter even where judicial review is limited.
4) Evidence that typically supports a strong defense
Evidence is fact-driven, but the following categories are common:
- Employer and client letters (abroad)
– Letters confirming foreign employment, salary paid abroad, and temporary U.S. visit purpose.
– Include dates, locations, and specific meeting agendas.
- Detailed itinerary and meeting documentation
– Calendar invites, conference registration, meeting minutes, and attendee lists.
– Show the activity was consultative, not productive labor.
- Payment records
– Bank statements and payroll showing foreign-source salary.
– If expenses were reimbursed, show receipts and reimbursement policy.
- Travel history and compliance
– Prior lawful U.S. entries, timely departures, and no overstays.
– I-94 history can be relevant.
- Corrective digital footprint
– If LinkedIn or other profiles suggested U.S.-based work, counsel may prepare an explanation, corrections, and context.
– Officers may still keep screenshots, so consistency matters.
- Declarations
– A sworn statement explaining intent at entry, what happened, and why it was not understood as employment.
– Avoid speculation and avoid blaming “someone told me.”
Callout — Social media vetting
If a consular officer requests public social media access as part of vetting, inconsistencies between “visitor” intent and posts advertising U.S. services can weaken the case. Do not delete content mid-review without legal advice.
5) Factors that tend to strengthen or weaken cases
Strengthening factors
- Short, well-documented trip tied to meetings or events.
- Clear foreign employment and foreign payroll.
- No U.S. clients, no U.S. invoicing, no U.S. “deliverables.”
- Prompt departure after learning of restrictions.
- Voluntary disclosure framed carefully through counsel.
Weakening factors
- Hands-on services, project execution, or staffing a U.S. role.
- “Remote work while visiting” for a foreign employer can still be questioned if it resembles day-to-day employment in the U.S. The law is fact-specific, and officers vary.
- U.S. payment, U.S. tax forms, or U.S. bank deposits tied to services.
- Prior overstays, status violations, or inconsistent statements.
- Messages, emails, or contracts showing pre-entry intent to work.
6) Disqualifying issues and bars to relief
Several issues can sharply limit options:
- Fraud / willful misrepresentation: INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) may create a lifetime bar. Some applicants may qualify for a waiver under INA § 212(i), but it usually requires a qualifying relative and an extreme hardship analysis.
- Expedited removal: can create a multi-year bar and complicate future travel. See INA § 212(a)(9)(A).
- Unlawful presence: if a person overstayed, INA § 212(a)(9)(B) 3- and 10-year bars may apply, depending on days accrued.
- Prior removals or reentries: can create additional bars under INA § 212(a)(9).
These are reasons attorney screening is essential before any new DS-160 submission or border attempt.
Callout — New bond pilot timing
The State Department has announced expanded visa bond requirements effective Jan. 21, 2026, for certain nationals. If a bond applies in your case, a violation could mean forfeiture and tougher future scrutiny. Confirm current requirements before applying.
7) Outcome expectations: what is realistic
There is no single approval rate for “unauthorized employment” defenses because outcomes depend on forum, facts, and credibility. In many B1/B2 cases, the practical goal is one of the following:
– Avoid a fraud finding where the evidence supports good-faith misunderstanding.
– Avoid compounding problems through inconsistent statements.
– Prepare a cleaner record for a future work-authorized visa category if eligible.
– If inside the U.S., evaluate whether any relief exists and whether departure is safer than litigation.
When the record contains clear proof of productive work in the U.S. and preplanned intent, defenses narrow quickly, and counsel may focus on minimizing long-term inadmissibility consequences.
Why attorney representation is critical right now
The Mumbai advisory underscores that enforcement is not limited to ports of entry. Cross-checking can involve digital evidence, employers, and travel patterns. Small wording choices in an interview can trigger a misrepresentation theory. For that reason, travelers should treat any allegation of unauthorized employment as a high-stakes legal matter.
For general immigration information, see USCIS.
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Resources
– AILA Lawyer Referral
This report details legal strategies for B1/B2 visa holders accused of unauthorized work. Following warnings from the U.S. Consulate in Mumbai, travelers must distinguish between permissible business meetings and prohibited productive labor. Defenses focus on proving foreign-source payment and lack of fraudulent intent. Avoiding a fraud finding is paramount to prevent permanent inadmissibility, as enforcement increasingly utilizes digital footprints and social media vetting.
