Have your named H-2 workers been screened for inadmissibility — prior overstays, prior visa refusals, criminal records, or 3/10-year bars?
An H-2 petition with named beneficiaries fails if any named worker is inadmissible — the consular officer will refuse the visa under INA § 214(b) or § 212. Common failure modes: a worker overstayed a B-2 in 2019, triggering a 10-year bar; a worker has a 2018 DUI that triggers heightened § 212(a)(2)(A) review; a worker has a prior 221(g) administrative-processing flag that re-triggers every consular appointment. We screen every named beneficiary's CCD record *before* filing — fixing problems at the petition stage costs days; fixing them at the consulate costs the season.
Context & Examples
Real example — Stockton orchard, 22-worker batch. We ran consular-record screens on all 22 named workers before filing. Three came back with issues: one had a 2017 H-2A overstay (60 days — under the 180-day threshold for the 3-year bar; we documented voluntary departure), one had a 2020 DUI (we obtained the certified disposition showing it was reduced to a wet-and-reckless and pre-cleared the consular interpretation), one had been 221(g)'d in 2019 (we filed a parallel inquiry through the consular liaison and pre-cleared the SAO). All 22 visas issued on schedule.
Horror story — same valley, no screening. A 2022 cherry grower's petition listed 18 workers with no pre-screening. At the Hermosillo consulate, 6 visas were refused: 2 for prior overstays (180+ days each, 3-year bar applied), 1 for a positive cocaine drug-test history disclosed at the medical exam, 3 for inconsistent prior 221(g) work histories. The grower had to scramble for replacement workers from the SWA pool at $24/hour and lost half the cherry harvest.
Why an attorney is essential: Consular screening is the single most effective return-on-investment service in H-2 practice. Every $50 of CCD screening saves $5,000 in last-minute scrambling.
Sources