Provided below is a list of precedent decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals on “extreme hardship.” These decisions are provided as a reference to adjudicating officers of the I-601 and I-601A Provisional Waiver units.
All of the waivers prepared by my office, including the I-601 Waiver and I-601A Provisional Waiver, incorporate relevant case law that pertain to the specific facts of our client’s case.
We constantly monitor administrative, legal, and other changes to the waiver process so that our clients’ waiver applications can be maximized for success.
We begin the waiver preparation process by providing an “extreme hardship” worksheet to our clients. This worksheet helps us identify all of the hardships being suffered by the qualifying relative(s) and the families we represent. This is important because while any single hardship may not be considered “extreme” in and of itself, multiple hardships can “add up” to become “cumulative” and meet the “extreme hardship” standard.
We also provide a detailed checklist of supporting documents to our clients so that every hardship we analyze and discuss can be objectively proven to the satisfaction of the adjudicating waiver officer.
We have a long-standing relationship with a clinical psychologist who is well-versed in preparing psychological evaluations for purposes of the I-601 Waiver and I-601A Provisional Waiver and offers a discounted fee to our clients. Should you decide to get evaluated by your own psychologist, I provide a sample psychological evaluation template so that the evaluation can be drafted in a clear and effective manner by those unfamiliar with the extreme hardship waiver process.
Our completed waiver memos are typically 25-30 pages in length. To this, we add Exhibits to prove every relevant statement made in the waiver. I always forward a draft of the waiver to my clients for review before anything is submitted to the USCIS. We also prepare all of the USCIS forms, organize the Exhibits, and meticulously assemble the waiver package before submitting it to the USCIS on behalf of our clients.
|BIA Decision||Summary of Decision on Extreme Hardship|
|Matter of Sangster, 11 I&N Dec. 309 (BIA 1965)||Economic detriment, in absence of other substantial equities, does not establish extreme hardship. No evidence that suitable employment was unavailable.|
|Matter of Saekow, 17 I&N Dec. 138 (BIA 1979)||In reference to applicant's suspension of deportation, the Immigration Judge determined that the respondent failed to demonstrate that his
deportation would result in extreme hardship to himself or to a specified family member.
|Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627 (BIA 1996)||• The term "extreme hardship" refers to hardship that is unusual or beyond that which would normally be expected upon deportation; the common results of deportation and exclusion are not sufficient to prove extreme hardship.
• Emotional hardship caused by the severing of family and community ties is a common result of deportation and does not constitute extreme hardship.
• To endure the hardship of either separation when it can be avoided by joining the applicant abroad, or of relocation when it can be avoided by remaining in the United States, is a matter of choice and not the result of removal or inadmissibility.
|Matter of Piggott, 15 I&N Dec. 129 (BIA 1974)||Immigration Judge finding that the respondents would not be able to provide for their own necessities in Antigua and that their children would suffer as a result of the parents' inability to provide them with proper food, living facilities, and education in that country. Youngest child has rheumatic fever. She is being treated in the US, and equal medical is not available in Antigua. Extreme hardship requirement met.|
|Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. 245 (Comm. 1984)||The approval of an application for a waiver pursuant to section 212(h) of the INA is dependent in part upon showing of extreme hardship, and thus only in cases of great actual or prospective injury to the qualifying family member will the bar be removed.|
|Matter of Louie, 10 I&N Dec. 223 (BIA 1963)||Elderly US Citizen father with no other relatives in the US. Respondent takes him to weekly doctors' appointments. In view of the father's advanced age and physical condition it would be extremely harsh, to both the respondent and his father, to deport the respondent from
the US. Extreme hardship met.
|Matter of Lopez-Monzon, 17 I&N Dec. 280 (Comm 1979)||• Eligibility under section 212(i) of the INA to apply for a waiver of grounds of excludability is limited to aliens who are spouses, parents or children of US citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. Congressional intent was to provide for the unification of families and avoid the hardship of separation.
• U.S. Citizen child did not reside in the US. The father (who resided in Guatemala) had custody of the child. No evidence was presented to indicate applicant would obtain custody of the child and no persuasive evidence that the applicant intended to bring the child to reside in the US. Approval of the waiver would not have reunited a family; favorable exercise of discretion was not granted.
|Matter of Loo, 15 I&N Dec. 601 (BIA 1976)||Applicant has 25 years residence in the US, a Lawful Permanent Resident daughter, and a small investment in a US business in which he was employed. Extreme hardship met.|
|Matter of Liao, 11 I&N Dec. 113 (BIA 1965)||Hardship claim of fear of persecution and diminished employment opportunities. Applicant did not establish that his deportation would result in extreme hardship because he refused to return to that country after completing the program of military training for which he entered the US and expressed political views which are not looked upon with favor by the Nationalist Government of China on Formosa.|
|Matter of lge, 20 I&N Dec. 880 (BIA 1994)||Assuming a United States citizen child would not suffer extreme hardship if he accompanies his parent abroad, any hardship the child might face if left in the United States is the result of parental choice, not of the parent's deportation.|
|Matter of Leon, 10 I&N|
Dec. 274 (BIA 1963)
|Respondent has US military service with a service connected
disability (30% ), is a US high school graduate, employed, and most of his adult years were spent in the US. Earning ability has been impaired by the service connected disability. Extreme hardship met.
|Matter of Kojoory, 12 I&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1967)||Extreme hardship not established in relation to applicant's claim of fear of persecution if returned to Iran, limited economic opportunities, lack of opportunities in his own field, and difficulty adjusting to the standard of living.|
|Matter of Kim, 15 I&N Dec. 88 (BIA 1974)||Suspension of deportation under section 244(a)(1) of the INA based on 7 years physical presence in the US will not be granted on a claim of extreme hardship, where the only facts presented tended to show better economic and educational opportunities for her US citizen children in the US than in Korea.|
|Matter of H-, 14 I&N Dec. 185 (RC 1972) - sec. 212(h)||Extreme hardship within the meaning of section 212(h) of the INA is established where the applicant's spouse is 81 years old and has already endured a 15-year exile from the US to reside with the applicant in Mexico. The applicant established complete reformation from the activities that rendered her excludable and the stability between her US Citizen spouse was satisfactorily demonstrated; Therefore, a waiver pursuant to 212(h) was granted.|
|Matter of Gibson, 16 I&N Dec. 58 (BIA 1976)||Even though the alien meets the physical presence and Good Moral Character requirements of the statute, suspension of deportation was ordered denied because economic detriment which may result from deportation does not meet the test of extreme hardship within the contemplation of section 244(a)(1) of the INA. Alien was employed as a custodian and should have no difficulty in finding suitable employment abroad. No relatives in the US.|
|Matter of Da Silva, 217 I&N Dec. 288 (Comm 1979)||• A discretionary decision must be based on the weight factors present in the case, both adverse and favorable. Questionable factors should not be considered at all, or should be resolved in favor of the applicant.
• A waiver application under section 212(i) of the INA will be approved in the interest of family reunification where the requisite relationship exists and the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable factors.
|Matter of Chumpitazi, 16 I&N Dec. 629 (BIA 1978)||The loss of job and the financial loss incurred is not "extreme hardship" within the meaning of section 211 of the INA, despite a 11-year stay in the US.|
|Matter of Cervantes -Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 1996)||Outlines hardship factors to consider in determining whether an alien has established extreme hardship pursuant to section 212(i) of the INA.|
|Matter of Anderson 16 I&N Dec. 596 (BIA 1978)||While political and economic conditions in an alien's homeland are relevant factors in determining extreme hardship under section 244(a)(1) of the INA, they do not justify a grant of relief unless other factors such as advanced age, severe illness, family. ties, etc. combine with economic detriment to make deportation extremely hard on the alien or the citizen or permanent resident members of his family.|
|Matter of Alonzo, 17 I&N Dec. 292 (Comm 1979)||• The birth of a US Citizen child, whether or not born during a lawful stay of the parents in the US, is a favorable factor and must accorded considerable weight in the adjudication of an application for the relief of a waiver of grounds of excludability under section 212(i)
of the INA.
• The section 212(i) waiver should be granted in the exercise of discretion, where favorable factors are present, and there is an absence of countervailing adverse factors.
• No statutory or other requirement that extreme hardship be shown
in a section 212(i) waiver case.
• Applicant sought waiver of excludability for obtaining visas by
fraud and misrepresentation. The violation was not held as an adverse factor action because it was the violation for which the alien seeks to be forgiven.
|Matter of Uy, 11 I&N Dec. 159 (BIA 1965)||Applicant did not establish his deportation would result in extreme hardship, merely because he would suffer some economic hardship due to limited opportunities in his field of training.|