INA 212(a)(2)(D)(ii) · Criminal and related grounds
Allegations involving arrangements, importation or prostitution proceeds can create immigration problems even without a conviction. The statutory acts, reliable evidence and timing determine whether the ground applies.
Not every allegation does. INA 212(a)(2)(D)(ii) covers specified acts of directly or indirectly procuring or attempting to procure persons for prostitution, importing persons for that purpose, or receiving proceeds. A conviction is not a statutory prerequisite, but the charged conduct, relevant period, and supporting facts are decisive.
Possible outcomes: The alleged ground may be factually or legally unsupported and open to challenge. When inadmissibility is established, certain immigrants may seek INA 212(h), and eligible temporary visitors may be considered under INA 212(d)(3)(A). Neither route is automatic.
01 / VERBATIM LAW
The full three-clause statutory provision appears below to distinguish prostitution, procurement, and other commercialized vice.
(D) Prostitution and commercialized vice
Any alien who—
(i) is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,
(ii) directly or indirectly procures or attempts to procure, or (within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status) procured or attempted to procure or to import, prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or receives or (within such 10-year period) received, in whole or in part, the proceeds of prostitution, or
(iii) is coming to the United States to engage in any other unlawful commercialized vice, whether or not related to prostitution,
is inadmissible.
(D)(i): personally engaging in prostitution or entering to do so. (D)(ii): procuring, attempted procuring, importation, or receipt of proceeds. (D)(iii): entering to engage in other unlawful commercialized vice.
The ten-year language is expressly tied to the prior acts listed in clause (ii), while its present-tense wording addresses current procurement and receipt. The correct statutory clause and the facts behind it matter.
02 / LEGAL ELEMENTS
An employment title, an accusation or a payment by itself does not resolve the statutory question.
Arranging or facilitating people for prostitution, including attempted procurement, may be covered. The statute deliberately includes indirect involvement and attempts.
The provision separately names procuring or attempting to import persons for prostitution. The actual purpose and alleged conduct must be established.
Receiving part or all of prostitution proceeds is expressly covered. A disputed payment should be characterized by its real source and relationship to prostitution rather than by label alone.
The statute names conduct within the ten years preceding a visa, admission, or adjustment application, alongside its separate present-tense language. Timing and alleged continuing conduct need careful distinction.
22 CFR 40.24: The regulation addresses activities within ten years, defines prostitution, and explains that foreign-law legality is not necessarily controlling. Its special definition of a pattern of personally engaging in prostitution should not be automatically substituted for the distinct procurement/proceeds elements of clause (ii).
03 / CHALLENGE OR RECONSIDERATION
A legal challenge disputes the finding itself. A waiver requests permission despite an applicable ground; they are fundamentally different strategies.
WHERE THE FINDING MAY BE UNSUPPORTED
Some determinations involve mistaken identity, unclear business arrangements, unrelated transfers of funds, incorrect statutory classification, disputed timing or unsupported inferences about a person’s role. A legally grounded review can determine whether the charged subsection actually fits the record.
Being employed near an alleged activity or having a business relationship with someone involved in prostitution does not automatically establish every statutory element.
AGENCY-SPECIFIC LEGAL REVIEW
Depending on whether the determination arose during consular processing, a USCIS application or border inspection, an erroneous finding may be susceptible to further review or reconsideration. The opportunities and limits differ by agency and procedural posture.
Attorney evaluation matters: The Messersmith Law Firm assesses whether to contest the inadmissibility allegation or pursue an available waiver, without assuming the government’s conclusion is correct.
Separate allegations: Human trafficking, criminal convictions, misrepresentation and other grounds must be analyzed independently. Disputing a (D)(ii) allegation does not by itself resolve a different ground.
04 / IMMIGRANT & ADJUSTMENT WAIVER
For eligible applicants, a special rehabilitation route can be available without an automatic fifteen-year waiting period.
IMMIGRANT VISA / ADJUSTMENT
Rehabilitation: INA 212(h)(1)(A) permits qualifying applicants inadmissible only under (D)(i) or (D)(ii) to demonstrate rehabilitation and that admission would not be contrary to US national welfare, safety or security, without the alternative requirement that more than fifteen years have elapsed. No qualifying relative is required for this specific route.
Qualifying-relative hardship: INA 212(h)(1)(B) separately provides for eligible applicants based on extreme hardship to a qualifying US citizen or LPR spouse, parent, son or daughter.
VAWA: INA 212(h)(1)(C) identifies a separate route for eligible VAWA self-petitioners.
RESTRICTIONS & DISCRETION
If the applicant does not satisfy a statutory eligibility route, NO INA 212(h) waiver is available on those facts. The statute also bars waivers involving murder or criminal acts of torture, including specified attempts or conspiracies, and limits eligibility for certain people previously admitted as permanent residents who have aggravated felony or residency issues.
A waiver remains discretionary. Other inadmissibility findings may need separate relief and can prevent approval even if the prostitution-related ground is waivable.
The Attorney General may, in his discretion, waive the application of subparagraphs (A)(i)(I), (B), (D), and (E) of subsection (a)(2) and subparagraph (A)(i)(II) of such subsection insofar as it relates to a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana if—
(1)(A) in the case of any immigrant it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that—
(i) the alien is inadmissible only under subparagraph (D)(i) or (D)(ii) of such subsection or the activities for which the alien is inadmissible occurred more than 15 years before the date of the alien's application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,
(ii) the admission to the United States of such alien would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the United States, and
(iii) the alien has been rehabilitated; or
(B) in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the alien's denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to the United States citizen or lawfully resident spouse, parent, son, or daughter of such alien; or
(C) the alien is a VAWA self-petitioner; and
(2) the Attorney General, in his discretion, and pursuant to such terms, conditions and procedures as he may by regulations prescribe, has consented to the alien's applying or reapplying for a visa, for admission to the United States, or adjustment of status.
No waiver shall be provided under this subsection in the case of an alien who has been convicted of (or who has admitted committing acts that constitute) murder or criminal acts involving torture, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit murder or a criminal act involving torture.
No waiver shall be granted under this subsection in the case of an alien who has previously been admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if either since the date of such admission the alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony or the alien has not lawfully resided continuously in the United States for a period of not less than 7 years immediately preceding the date of initiation of proceedings to remove the alien from the United States.
No court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision of the Attorney General to grant or deny a waiver under this subsection.
05 / NONIMMIGRANT WAIVER
A separate discretionary route may allow an otherwise eligible person to seek temporary admission.
TEMPORARY VISA ELIGIBILITY
Applicants for eligible B-1/B-2 and other temporary classifications may be considered for a waiver notwithstanding clause (D)(ii), subject to applicable recommendation and DHS authorization requirements. The existence of the waiver does not guarantee approval of the visa or overcome every other reason for refusal.
Relevant considerations include the nature and recency of the alleged conduct, rehabilitation, credibility, legitimate temporary purpose and US public interests.
IMPORTANT LIMITS
INA 212(d)(3)(A) relief is discretionary and subject to its statutory exclusions. It does not waive a separate failure to qualify for the underlying visa or authorize future unlawful activity in the United States.
Special T and U classifications may implicate separate humanitarian waiver rules, which should not be confused with ordinary temporary admission.
(3)(A) Except as provided in this subsection, an alien (i) who is applying for a nonimmigrant visa and is known or believed by the consular officer to be ineligible for such visa under subsection (a) (other than paragraphs (3)(A)(i)(I), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(iii), (3)(C), and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E) of such subsection), may, after approval by the Attorney General of a recommendation by the Secretary of State or by the consular officer that the alien be admitted temporarily despite his inadmissibility, be granted such a visa and may be admitted into the United States temporarily as a nonimmigrant in the discretion of the Attorney General, or (ii) who is inadmissible under subsection (a) (other than paragraphs (3)(A)(i)(I), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(iii), (3)(C), and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E) of such subsection), but who is in possession of appropriate documents or is granted a waiver thereof and is seeking admission, may be admitted into the United States temporarily as a nonimmigrant in the discretion of the Attorney General.
A hotel manager receives a routine commercial payment from a customer later investigated for prostitution. A visa officer raises concerns about proceeds. Whether the hotel payment actually came from prostitution, and whether the manager performed acts constituting procurement or receipt of prostitution proceeds under clause (ii), calls for careful legal assessment rather than an assumption based solely on association.
Assume instead reliable evidence establishes that the manager knowingly arranged prostitutes for customers and received a share of the proceeds three years before an immigrant visa application. A (D)(ii) finding may apply even without a conviction. For an otherwise eligible immigrant inadmissible only under (D)(ii), INA 212(h)(1)(A) can provide a rehabilitation route without an automatic fifteen-year wait; qualifying nonimmigrants have a different discretionary waiver authority.
06 / FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
All seven questions from the original page are retained and expanded with statutory distinctions and legal options.
INA 212(a)(2)(D)(ii) addresses directly or indirectly procuring or attempting to procure persons for prostitution, importing persons for that purpose, and receiving part or all of prostitution proceeds. Its language covers qualifying current conduct and historical conduct within the specified ten-year period.
No. The provision concerns conduct rather than requiring a conviction. A charge, allegation, or arrest also does not by itself prove that the actual statutory conduct occurred.
Clause (D)(i) principally concerns personally engaging in prostitution or coming to the US to do so. Clause (D)(ii) concerns procurement, attempts, importation, and receipt of proceeds. Clause (D)(iii) separately concerns other unlawful commercialized vice.
It can involve arranging or facilitating another person’s participation in prostitution. The statutory language also covers attempts and indirect conduct. Mere proximity to a business or acquaintance with someone involved does not automatically establish procurement.
The statutory language encompasses receiving part or all of the proceeds of prostitution. Whether a particular payment is covered depends on the actual source and nature of the transaction. It does not automatically encompass every ordinary commercial payment to a person whose background is later questioned.
Yes, potentially. Eligible immigrant and adjustment applicants may qualify for INA 212(h), including its special rehabilitation route for applicants inadmissible only under (D)(i) or (D)(ii), without an automatic fifteen-year wait. Eligible temporary nonimmigrants may qualify for discretionary INA 212(d)(3)(A) authorization.
The circumstances of the alleged arrangements or payments, reliable records, timing, and the actual basis of the government finding can be important. An immigration attorney can assess what information is legally relevant without assuming that every financial or business association proves the ground.
Potentially. A finding may merit legal review when it rests on mistaken identity, unreliable allegations, mischaracterized payments, the wrong statutory clause, or conduct outside the applicable period. The available form of review depends on which agency made the determination and the individual case.
No. A legitimate business payment is not necessarily a prostitution proceed merely because another person is suspected of prostitution. The nature, origin, and supporting evidence concerning the actual payment are important.
The statute expressly refers to procuring, attempts, importing, and receiving proceeds within ten years of the visa, admission, or adjustment application. Its current-conduct language is separate, so older activity and a current course of conduct cannot simply be treated identically.
Yes. The immigration inadmissibility analysis is not limited to conduct occurring on US territory. The nature, timing, and sufficiency of the alleged acts remain essential.
Foreign legality alone does not eliminate this federal inadmissibility ground. 22 CFR 40.24(c) explains that the provision can apply even if conduct was not prohibited in the foreign jurisdiction.
No. Clause (D)(ii) specifically addresses procurement, attempted procurement, importing, and receipt of proceeds, which are distinct from personally engaging in prostitution under (D)(i).
No automatic conclusion follows from job title or a single service. A fact-specific examination is necessary to distinguish ordinary transportation or lodging services from conduct that falls within the statutory language.
No. A government determination must rest on the applicable legal standard and the relevant evidence. A single allegation may deserve examination, but neither an allegation nor an arrest should be equated with a conclusive finding.
No. The petty-offense exception belongs to a different CIMT provision. Clause (D)(ii) is a separate conduct-based ground. An unrelated CIMT ground may require independent legal analysis.
If the applicant is inadmissible only under (D)(i) or (D)(ii), INA 212(h)(1)(A) offers a rehabilitation and national-welfare route without requiring more than fifteen years to have passed. Eligibility and a favorable discretionary decision are still required.
Not by itself. The special INA 212(h)(1)(A) rehabilitation route does not require a qualifying relative. The separate extreme-hardship route under (h)(1)(B) does require a covered US citizen or LPR family relationship and extreme hardship.
Applicants must meet an INA 212(h) statutory route and obtain favorable discretion. The statute contains prohibitions involving murder and torture and restrictions affecting certain people previously admitted as lawful permanent residents. Other inadmissibility grounds must also be evaluated independently.
INA 212(h)(1)(C) provides a distinct possible route for eligible VAWA self-petitioners. The provision’s separate restrictions and discretionary requirements still apply.
Yes. An eligible temporary nonimmigrant may be considered for a discretionary waiver under INA 212(d)(3)(A), subject to proper authorization, temporary travel eligibility, and review of the underlying circumstances.
No. A waiver of a past or existing inadmissibility ground is not authorization to engage in unlawful activities in the United States. The applicant must otherwise qualify for the intended visa and lawful visit.
No. INA 212(a)(2)(D) concerns prostitution and commercialized vice, while INA 212(a)(2)(H) addresses specified human trafficking conduct and uses different elements and waiver considerations. The alleged activity must be evaluated under the correct statute.
A legally grounded review should determine whether the finding applies and whether an eligible immigrant or nonimmigrant waiver may provide relief. Procedures depend on the agency and case posture. Experienced immigration counsel can assess the most appropriate response.
07 / AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES
Primary legal material supports the key statutory tests and waiver distinctions.
THE MESSERSMITH LAW FIRM, P.A.
Our firm evaluates disputed procurement and proceeds allegations, timing, potential reconsideration, and immigrant or nonimmigrant waiver eligibility. A lawyer can assess whether the more effective legal position is to contest the finding or pursue relief.
CLIENT TESTIMONIALS
Clients recognize the firm's careful preparation, responsiveness, and commitment to finding the appropriate legal strategy for their immigration cases.
Throughout the process, Peter was knowledgeable, professional, and straightforward. His assistant, Jen, was also outstanding. She was always patient, responsive, and willing to answer my questions promptly, which made a very stressful immigration process much easier.
Peter is the best immigration attorney you can ask for. He guided me through the entire employment-based green card process, from the EB-2 NIW petition to receiving my green card.
Peter and Jen are very reachable and patient. They are detail-oriented and very knowledgeable. I really enjoy working with them! If you choose them, you will be in good hands.
From the very outset, Mr. Messersmith and his team exhibited a level of professionalism and dedication that exceeded my expectations.
I found Peter online but I have to say I’m so lucky to find Peter as my immigration lawyer. He is the best lawyer I’ve met before.
Peter and his team helped me get approved for both an NIW and EB1A (extra ordinary ability), which ultimately led to a green card.
We had a great experience working with Peter, he supported me and the family through the EB 1 and I 485 application process.
His team has fast and quick communication - typically you will get a response in 1 business day
Peter assisted me in filing a waiver in order to reapply for a student visa into the US. He was very knowledgeable about the different laws and procedures, and could always answer all of my many questions.
I am writing to express my deepest gratitude for the exceptional legal representation and support you provided during the challenging process of resolving the issue with my H-4 visa application.
Peter and his expert team helped me to take care of my wife's immigration case. They were super valuable, helpful, kind, and caring people.
Peter and team helped me get EB1A approved. Most of the lawyers I contacted would say my case is hard for EB1A, but Peter reviewed my CV and rightly advised during each step of the EB1 process. He also filed my NIW which got approved too.
Mr. Messersmith is very knowledgeable and methodical, and can work on cases that are complicated and not necessarily normal.
The Messersmith Law Firm is one of the finest law firm in the US.
Very professional and helpful. Messersmith Law Firm are the best Immigration Lawyers. Peter is very helpful and guides you all the way in all the documentation and filing.
He is quite professional and gave me a lot of advice.
Mr. Messersmith is the most excellent lawyer I have ever experienced, he has successfully helped me in three of my legal cases, I really appreciate it.
Very experienced to help me and my family successfully got the permanent resident cards, it's a good choice.
Best immigration attorney!
I liked Peter's calm, honest, and balanced approach to our very difficult immigration problem.
Went very smoothly. Very fast responses to my inquiries. Always sent me an email when a status would change.
Peter is great. I found him online and scheduled an interview with him, letting him review my CV.
The office of Mr. Peter did a great job preparing and submitting my application for a green card.
He was very quick to response and he explains everything clearly. He even checked my recommendation letters!
Extremely intelligent and committed team, highly effective, efficient and there to stand by you when you need them most.
These selected testimonials reflect individual client experiences. Results vary according to the facts and circumstances of each matter.
INA 212(a)(2)(D)(ii)
A defensible legal analysis begins with the statutory elements. Where the government’s finding is unsupported, review may be possible; when it applies, INA 212(h) and INA 212(d)(3)(A) provide separate conditional waiver possibilities.