Smart Immigration Lawyer

I-601 Waiver for Fraud/Misrepresentation Approved, Inadmissibility for Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude Removed, after Successful Writ of Mandamus Federal Lawsuit

By Leave a Comment

I-601 Waiver for Fraud/Misrepresentation Approved, Inadmissibility for Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude Removed, after Successful Writ of Mandamus Federal Lawsuit

Our office received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for the foreign husband of a U.S. citizen spouse who was subject to a life-time bar from being admitted to the United States for conviction of multiple crimes involving moral turpitude under INA Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and fraud/misrepresentation under INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

The applicant’s U.S. citizen spouse contacted my office for assistance in obtaining a waiver of both INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and 212(a)(2)(A)(i) after their previously filed I-601 waiver application (prepared by their previous attorney) was denied. In that first denial, the applicant’s past criminal convictions (“Infliction of Bodily Injury on another Individual”) were deemed by USCIS to be a “violent or dangerous crime” (8 C.F.R.) § 212.7(d).

USCIS does not generally exercise favorable discretion to approve a waiver under INA § 212(h) in cases involving violent or dangerous crimes unless there are extraordinary circumstances present (8 C.F.R.212.7(d)), which include national security considerations; foreign policy considerations; or cases in which the refusal of admission would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship”:

Criminal grounds of inadmissibility involving violent or dangerous crimes. The Attorney General, in general, will not favorably exercise discretion under section 212(h)(2) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(h)(2)) to consent to an application or reapplication for a visa, or admission to the United States, or adjustment of status, with respect to immigrant aliens who are inadmissible under section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration & Nationality Act in cases involving violent or dangerous crimes, except in extraordinary circumstances, such as those involving national security or foreign policy considerations, or cases in which an alien clearly demonstrates that the denial of the application for adjustment of status or an immigrant visa or admission as an immigrant would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. Moreover, depending on the gravity of the alien’s underlying criminal offense, a showing of extraordinary circumstances might still be insufficient to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion under section 212(h)(2) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. §1212.7(d)

In other words, not only did our client’s initial I-601 waiver prepared by their previous attorney get denied; their situation was made worse by the USCIS classifying the applicant’s crimes as being “violent or dangerous.”

We prepared a comprehensive I-601 waiver package including a 45 page legal memorandum arguing that the past criminal convictions of our client are neither “crimes involving moral turpitude” nor “violent or dangerous”; the extenuating circumstances surrounding our client’s failure to disclose these convictions on a prior ESTA application (which led to a finding of fraud/misrepresentation by the U.S. consular officer during his immigrant visa interview); and the exceptional and extremely unusual hardships and compelling discretionary factors present in this case.

As part of our immigrant waiver preparation process, we always provide a comprehensive waiver worksheet containing a thorough array of questions for our clients to answer about their lives.  This allows us to “brainstorm” every relevant factor (such as medical, physical, psychological, financial, legal, or other hardships) that may apply. We then analyze each factor and decide upon the most effective way to present it to the USCIS in our waiver application.

Our waiver worksheet also contains a long checklist of supporting documents to gather and present based upon our experience with successful waiver applications submitted during the past 20+ years.

Overall, our waiver preparation process is constantly improved upon since we regularly prepare and submit winning immigrant waiver applications for clients who come from countries throughout the world. We are proud to receive multiple approvals on I-601, I-601A, I-212, and 212(d)(3) waiver applications filed on behalf of our clients every single month.

After our I-601 waiver package was submitted and our clients experienced an excessively long delay in receiving a decision from USCIS, I filed a Writ of Mandamus lawsuit against USCIS in the Federal District Court of the Central District of California on behalf of my client.

As part of the Writ of Mandamus lawsuit filed against USCIS, I negotiated with a Special Assistant United States Attorney from the U.S. Department of Justice to reach a favorable outcome for my client. As a result, USCIS not only approved our client’s I-601 waiver, but we were able to get attorneys at the U.S. Department of State to remove the prior finding that our client’s criminal convictions consistuted “crimes involving moral turpitude” altogether.

Section 212(a)(2)(A) of the INA states, in pertinent parts:

(i) Any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of-

(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime . . . is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception.-Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if-

(I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age, and the crime was committed (and the alien was released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the crime) more than 5 years before the date of the application for a visa or other documentation and the date of application for admission to the United States, or

(II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed).

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held in Matter of Perez-Contreras, 20 I&N Dec. 615, 617-18 (BIA 1992), that:

[M]oral turpitude is a nebulous concept, which refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one’s fellow man or society in general.. ..In determining whether a crime involves moral turpitude, we consider whether the act is accompanied by a vicious motive or corrupt mind. Where knowing or intentional conduct is an element of an offense, we have found moral turpitude to be present. However, where the required mens rea may not be determined from the statute, moral turpitude does not inhere.

We specifically highlighted in our I-601 waiver that determinations of whether a foreign conviction constitutes a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT) requires a categorical analysis, one limited to the elements of the statutory offense, without reference to the specific acts of the individual that satisfy those elements.

This approach is codified in the Foreign Affairs Manual at 9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.1 “Evaluating Moral Turpitude Based Upon Statutory Definition of Offense and U.S. Standards.”

To render an alien ineligible under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), the conviction must be for a statutory offense, which involves moral turpitude. The presence of moral turpitude is determined by the nature of the statutory offense for which the alien was convicted, and not by the acts underlying the conviction. Therefore, evidence relating to the underlying act, including the testimony of the applicant, is not relevant to a determination of whether the conviction involved moral turpitude except when the statute is divisible (see 9 FAM 40.21(a) N5.2) or a political offense (see 9 FAM 40.21(a) N10). The presence of moral turpitude in a statutory offense is determined according to United States law. [Emphasis in original].

The FAM list examples of specific offenses that qualify as CIMT including crimes involving fraud, larceny, and intent to harm persons or things. [9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.2]. The manual also provides a list of offense which do not constitute CIMT, which list includes:

Assault (simple) (i.e., any assault, which does not require an evil intent or depraved motive, although it may involve the use of a weapon, which is neither dangerous or deadly) [9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.3-3(b); emphasis added].

We re-iterated in our review of the legal standard for classifying a foreign offense as a CIMT, that the USCIS must not consider any of the evidence of the underlying act. Rather, the USCIS must engage in an analysis of the elements of the foreign statutory offense. For a foreign offense to qualify as a CIMT, one of the elements of the offense must be a Mens Rea or specific intent on the part of the offender to cause harm to person or things, or, in the words of the BIA in Perez-Contreras, an intent showing “vicious motive or corrupt mind.” Id. at 617-18.

Thereafter, we analyzed the elements of the foreign criminal statute that our client was found guilty of, and proved that this statute does not contain the mens rea, or intent to inflict harm. Additionally, we noted that the Foreign Affairs Manual of the U.S. Department of State does not permit classification of a crime of “simple assault” as a CIMT. Rather, assaults criminalized by law may only be classified as a CIMT if an element of the offense “requires an evil intent or depraved motive.” [9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.3-3(b)].

In support of our legal analysis, we also included the legal opinion of a foreign criminal lawyer who noted that in the home country of the applicant, the disposition of a punishment of fine is imposed when the offense is not serious and very minor.

As a result of the detailed legal arguments made in our I-601 waiver application, along with my advocacy on behalf of my clients in federal court, the attorneys at the U.S. Department of State agreed that the applicant’s prior criminal convictions do not constitute crimes involving moral turpitude and withdrew that previous finding of inadmissibility.

INA Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides, in pertinent part:

(i) Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure(or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible.

The Attorney General [now the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary)] may, in the discretion of the Attorney General [Secretary], waive the application of clause (i) of subsection (a)(6)(C) in the case of an alien who is the spouse, son or daughter of a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General [Secretary] that the refusal of admission to the United States of such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such an alien.

A waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(i) of the Act is dependent on a showing that the bar to admission imposes extreme hardship on a qualifying relative, which includes the U.S. citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of the applicant.  If extreme hardship to a qualifying relative is established, the applicant is statutorily eligible for a waiver, and USCIS then assesses whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296, 301 (BIA 1996).

Extreme hardship is “not a definable term of fixed and inflexible content or meaning,” but “necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.” Matter of Hwang, 10 I&N Dec. 448, 451 (BIA 1964). In Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, the Board provided a list of factors it deemed relevant in determining whether an alien has established extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565 (BIA 1999). The factors include the presence of a lawful permanent resident or United States citizen spouse or parent in this country; the qualifying relative’s family ties outside the United States; the conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties in such countries; the financial impact of departure from this country; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate. Id. The Board added that not all of the foregoing factors need be analyzed in any given case and emphasized that the list of factors was not exclusive. Id . at 566.

The Board has also held that the common or typical results of removal and inadmissibility do not constitute extreme hardship, and has listed certain individual hardship factors considered common rather than extreme. These factors include: economic disadvantage, loss of current employment, inability to maintain one’s present standard of living, inability to pursue a chosen profession, separation from family members, severing community ties, cultural readjustment after living in the United States for many years, cultural adjustment of qualifying relatives who have never lived outside the United States, inferior economic and educational opportunities in the foreign country, or inferior medical facilities in the foreign country. See generally Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. at 568; Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627, 632-33 (BIA 1996); Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880, 883 (BIA 1994);Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. 245, 246-47 (Comm’r 1984); Matter of Kim, 15 I&N Dec. 88, 89-90 (BIA 1974); Matter of Shaughnessy, 12 I&N Dec. 810, 813 (BIA 1968).

However, though hardships may not be extreme when considered abstractly or individually, the Board has made it clear that “[r]elevant factors, though not extreme in themselves, must be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists.” Matter of 0-J-0-, 21 I&N Dec. 381, 383 (BIA 1996) (quoting Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. at 882). The adjudicator “must consider the entire range of factors concerning hardship in their totality and determine whether the combination of hardships takes the case beyond those hardships ordinarily associated with deportation.” Id.

The actual hardship associated with an abstract hardship factor such as family separation, economic disadvantage, cultural readjustment, et cetera, differs in nature and severity depending on the unique circumstances of each case, as does the cumulative hardship a qualifying relative experiences as a result of aggregated individual hardships. See, e.g.,, 23 I&N Dec. 45, 51 (BIA 2001) (distinguishing Matter of Pilch regarding hardship faced by qualifying relatives on the basis of variations in the length of residence in the United States and the ability to speak the language of the country to which they would relocate).

For example, though family separation has been found to be a common result of inadmissibility or removal, separation from family living in the United States can also be the most important single hardship factor in considering hardship in the aggregate. Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292, 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Contreras-Buenfil v. INS, 712 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1983)); but see Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. at 24 7 (separation of spouse and children from applicant not extreme hardship due to conflicting evidence in the record and because applicant and spouse had been voluntarily separated from one another for 28 years).

Therefore, the AAO considers the totality of the circumstances in determining whether denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative.

The favorable factors we highlighted in this I-601 Waiver to obtain approval of the fraud/misrepresentation inadmissibility include the following:

  • the U.S. citizen spouse was a member of the U.S. Armed Forces who was honorably discharged after having been awarded multiple medals and commendations
  • the U.S. citizen spouse has major medical service-related disabilities and is considered 90% disabled by the Veteran’s Administration.
  • The U.S. citizen spouse suffers from orthopedic ailments that limit her mobility and physical functioning and has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.  
  • the U.S. citizen spouse is the primary care-taker of her elderly father who is a retired U.S. law enforcement officer and suffers from a variety of ailments.  
  • the foreign spouse has played a critical role in caring for the U.S. citizen spouse’s elderly and infirm father for many years
  • the U.S. citizen spouse has been deteriorating steadily due to her myriad of ailments and likely to experience several financial hardship due to her inability to work

Due to our efforts on behalf of this family including a Writ of Mandamus lawsuit filed against USCIS in federal court, the I-601 waiver for the inadmissibility of fraud/misrepresentation was approved; the inadmissibility for conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude was removed; and this family can soon reside together in the United States.  

212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Waiver Approved for B-1/B-2 Visa Applicant Charged with Fraud/Misrepresentation and Conviction of Crimes involving Moral Turpitude

By Leave a Comment

212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Waiver Approved for B-1/B-2 Visa Applicant Charged with Fraud/Misrepresentation and Conviction of Crimes involving Moral Turpitude

We recently received approval for a 212(d)(3) non-immigrant waiver prepared on behalf of a South Korean client who was subject to a life-time bar from entering the United States due to being charged with fraud/misrepresentation pursuant to INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and multiple convictions of Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude under INA Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i).

Our client previously attended middle school, high school, and university in the United States before returning to his native country of South Korea. He recently attempted to re-enter the United States as a temporary visitor to visit his family members and long-time friends, as well as pursue an entrepreneurial venture in partnership with a U.S.-based company.

He was denied entry due to being charged with fraud/misrepresentation under INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and multiple convictions of Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude under INA Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i). He subsequently contacted my office for assistance in obtaining a waiver of both INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and 212(a)(2)(A)(i) , as well as approval of a B-1/B-2 visa to temporarily visit the U.S. in the future.

We prepared a comprehensive 212(d)(3) non-immigrant waiver in the form of a fourteen-page legal brief discussing the three legal factors set forth by Matter of Hranka, 16 I&N Dec. 491 (BIA 1978). We also submitted twelve separate exhibits supporting all of the factors set forth in our memorandum including: numerous affidavits; financial documentation; police reports and court records; military service records; business presentations and documentation; along with other vital evidence we have found necessary to secure approval of the 212(d)(3) waiver.

In the case, Matter of Hranka, 16 I&N Dec. 491 (BIA 1978), the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed a district director’s denial of a waiver application filed by a Canadian woman who had been deported for engaging in prostitution and admitted to previous heroin use.  She filed her application only two years after having been deported.  She requested entry to visit relatives and engage in various tourist activities.

In overturning the district director’s decision to deny the application, the BIA accepted as proof of rehabilitation letters from the applicant’s mother, and the principal of the high school the applicant had attended, who is a psychologist.  It held that the applicant’s reasons for entering the United States need not be compelling.  The BIA articulated three criteria for granting a waiver under INA 212(d)(3)

1.      The risks of harm in admitting the applicant;

2.      The seriousness of the acts that caused the inadmissibility; and

3.      The importance of the applicant’s reason for seeking entry.

Both Department of State and the Foreign Affairs Manual specify that any nonimmigrant may request a waiver as long as his or her presence would not be detrimental to the United States.  They provide that “while the exercise of discretion and good judgment is essential, generally, consular officers may recommend waivers for any legitimate purpose such as family visits, medical treatment (whether or not available abroad), business conferences, tourism, etc.” See 22 CFR 40.301 Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) 40.301 N3.  Furthermore, the Admissibility Review Office has confirmed that it will follow and adhere to Matter of Hranka in adjudicating requests for INA 212(d)(3) waivers.

In our client’s case, we addressed each of the factors laid out by Matter of Hranka emphasizing the importance of our client’s reason for entering the U.S.: namely, the vital importance of allowing a prior student of the United States educational system to re-visit the U.S. and visit his long-time friends; allowing our client to visit his U.S. citizen relatives who he has not seen for over 7+ years; and to facilitate the growth of the U.S. economy and promote international trade by allowing our client to meet with a U.S. company that he has entered into a contractual business agreement with.

We emphasized the non-existent risk of our client overstaying or violating the terms of a B-1/B-2 visa, given his ownership and operation of a South Korean company that requires his day-to-day managerial and operational presence; his prior lawful presence in the United States as a foreign student on a valid F-1 visa; our client’s intimate support and long-term commitment to his parents, who rely upon our client for their overall care and payment of household expenses; and our client’s legitimate business need to meet with a U.S. company, with whom he has entered into a contractual agreement.

Based upon these factors, our client was first recommended for the 212(d)(3) waiver by the interviewing consular officer at the U.S. embassy; then later approved for the 212(d)(3) non-immigrant waiver by the Admissibility Review Office in Washington D.C.; and finally, for the B-1/B-2 Visitor Visa.

These types of cases are difficult to get approved due to the tendency of US consular officers to attribute “immigrant intent” to non-immigrant visa applicants and consequently, refuse recommendation of the 212(d)(3) waiver.  This was especially so in this case because our client had multiple grounds of inadmissibility which he was subject to.

Due to our extensive preparation of the waiver and lobbying undertaken to ensure its adequate consideration and review by the U.S. consulate, our client is now able to enter the United States, visit his family members and long-time friends, and further the success of his entrepreneurial venture.

I-601 Waiver Pursuant to INA 212(h)(1)(A) and INA 212(h)(1)(B) Approved for Israeli Applicant Charged with Crimes involving Moral Turpitude

By Leave a Comment

I-601 Waiver Pursuant to INA 212(h)(1)(A) and INA 212(h)(1)(B) Approved for Israeli Applicant Charged with Crimes involving Moral Turpitude

Our office received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for a client who was subject to a lifetime ban from being admitted to the United States pursuant to INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

Our client was charged and convicted of conduct which occurred between 1995 and 1997, for which offense he was fined over $10,000 USD and given a sentence of 31 months. These convictions triggered the lifetime inadmissibility bar pursuant to INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) “Crimes involving moral turpitude.”  After being discharged from prison, he was removed from the United States and returned to his home country of Israel.

The waiver applicant’s U.S. citizen daughter contacted me after her father was denied admission to the U.S. following his immigrant visa interview at the U.S. embassy in Israel.  We initiated work on this case after a detailed consultation by first sending the clients our Waiver Worksheets.  Our Waiver Worksheets contain a comprehensive list of questions for our clients to answer along with a detailed checklist of supporting documents to gather – all for the purpose of eliciting every piece of information that will allow us to prepare a winning immigration waiver package on behalf of our clients.

A thoroughly researched and documented waiver memorandum and package was subsequently prepared by our office based on the fact that more than 15 years have passed since the applicant was convicted of criminal offense in the United States; the clear evidence that his admission would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety or security of the United States; and that he has been fully rehabilitated.

Legal Requirements of the § 212(h) Waiver

Section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a discretionary waiver for the following criminal grounds of inadmissibility:

  • Crimes involving moral turpitude (subparagraph 212(a)(2)(A)(I))
  • Multiple criminal convictions (212(a)(2)(B))
  • Prostitution and commercial vice (212(a)(2)(D))
  • Certain aliens who have asserted immunity from prosecution (212(a)(2)(E))
  • An offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana (212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II))

INA 212(h)(1)(A) provides that certain grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)-(II), (B), and (E) of the Act may be waived in the case of an alien who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that:

  • the activities for which she is inadmissible occurred more than fifteen years before the date of the alien’s application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status;
  • the admission would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the U.S.; and
  • the alien has been rehabilitated;

INA 212(h)(1)(B) provides that certain grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)-(II), (B), (D)-(E) of the Act may be waived in the case of an alien who:

  • has a parent, spouse, son, or daughter who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States; and
  • the parent, spouse, son, or daughter would suffer “extreme hardship” on account of the alien’s ineligibility to immigrate

Waiver applicants must also show that their application should be granted as a matter of discretion, with the favorable factors outweighing the unfavorable factors in his or her case.

In support of my client’s I-601 waiver application, I prepared a comprehensive legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of his situation met the legal standards of both INA 212(h)(1)(A) and INA 212(h)(1)(B), including citations of existing case law favorable to my client’s case.  In other words, we went beyond what was required by presenting both legal arguments and documentary evidence to demonstrate eligibility for the I-601 waiver under two separate provisions of the Immigration & Nationality Act.

I showed that my client is rehabilitated and his admission not contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the U.S., based upon his long-history as a successful small business owner; his charitable acts including regularly donating food to local religious-educational institutions; as well as his selfless dedication to the care and education of his U.S. citizen children. I argued that even while in prison serving his sentence, he took advantage of the educational opportunities afforded to him to earn his high school equivalency; completed a custodial skills training program; and obtained early release from prison for good behavior.

I presented in-depth evidence that he committed himself to being an ethical, law-abiding, and respected member of his community after his release from prison.   His impeccable conduct for over 15+ years as well as a myriad of affidavits by friends and family proved that our client posed absolutely no risk to the safety or welfare of the U.S., and in fact, would substantially contribute to the U.S. if admitted as a permanent resident.

It is often important in waiver applications to demonstrate (when possible) an important turning point in an applicant’s life, which provides a marker that the USCIS officer can point to and remember has having effected a fundamental change in the applicant’s outlook and conduct.

We also discussed how the unique circumstances and dynamics of this family, and being unable to lawfully reside in the U.S., was presently causing extreme psychological, emotional, medical, and financial hardship to multiple U.S. citizen qualifying relatives.  We presented arguments showing how these extreme hardship factors would worsen if our client is not admitted into the United States.

An extensive collection of fifteen separate legal exhibits also provided a variety of evidence in support of our client’s good moral character and rehabilitation, as well as a finding of extreme hardship that his qualifying relatives would suffer in the event his I-601 waiver was denied.

As a result of our efforts, our client was approved for the 601 waiver and will be receiving his lawful permanent residence to join his family in the United States.

I-601 Waiver for Crime Involving Moral Turpitude Approved for K-1 Fiance

By Leave a Comment

I-601 Waiver for Crime Involving Moral Turpitude Approved for K-1 Fiancé

Our office received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for the foreign fiancé of a U.S. citizen who is subject to a life-time bar from being admitted to the United States for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude under INA Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

Our office was contacted by our clients after the foreign fiancé attended his consular interview; was denied and deemed inadmissible for not disclosing a previously expunged conviction; and given a “Foreign Service of the United States of America Refusal Worksheet.” This refusal worksheet will typically notify the applicant of the specific inadmissibility (under the Immigration & Nationality Act) that the applicant is subject to, and whether the applicant is eligible to apply for a waiver or not.

Section 212(a)(2)(A) of the Act states, in pertinent parts:

(i) Any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of-

(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime . . . is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception.-Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if-

(I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age, and the crime was committed (and the alien was released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the crime) more than 5 years before the date of the application for a visa or other documentation and the date of application for admission to the United States, or

(II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed).

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held in Matter of Perez-Contreras, 20 I&N Dec. 615, 617-18 (BIA 1992), that:

[M]oral turpitude is a nebulous concept, which refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one’s fellow man or society in general.. ..In determining whether a crime involves moral turpitude, we consider whether the act is accompanied by a vicious motive or corrupt mind. Where knowing or intentional conduct is an element of an offense, we have found moral turpitude to be present. However, where the required mens rea may not be determined from the statute, moral turpitude does not inhere.

Section 212(h) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that:

(h) Waiver of subsection (a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (II), (B), (D), and (E).-The Attorney General [now the Secretary of Homeland Security, “Secretary”] may, in [her] discretion, waive the application of subparagraphs (A)(i)(I) … of subsection (a)(2) if-

(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 established to the satisfaction of the [Secretary] 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.

(2) the [Secretary], in [her] discretion, and pursuant to such terms, conditions and procedures as [she] 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.

Extreme hardship is “not a definable term of fixed and inflexible content or meaning,” but “necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.” Matter of Hwang, 10 I&N Dec. 448, 451 (BIA 1964). In Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, the Board provided a list of factors it deemed relevant in determining whether an alien has established extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565 (BIA 1999). The factors include the presence of a lawful permanent resident or United States citizen spouse or parent in this country; the qualifying relative’s family ties outside the United States; the conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties in such countries; the financial impact of departure from this country; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate. Id. The Board added that not all of the foregoing factors need be analyzed in any given case and emphasized that the list of factors was not exclusive. Id . at 566.

The Board has also held that the common or typical results of removal and inadmissibility do not constitute extreme hardship, and has listed certain individual hardship factors considered common rather than extreme. These factors include: economic disadvantage, loss of current employment, inability to maintain one’s present standard of living, inability to pursue a chosen profession, separation from family members, severing community ties, cultural readjustment after living in the United States for many years, cultural adjustment of qualifying relatives who have never lived outside the United States, inferior economic and educational opportunities in the foreign country, or inferior medical facilities in the foreign country. See generally Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. at 568; Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627, 632-33 (BIA 1996); Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880, 883 (BIA 1994);Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. 245, 246-47 (Comm’r 1984); Matter of Kim, 15 I&N Dec. 88, 89-90 (BIA 1974); Matter of Shaughnessy, 12 I&N Dec. 810, 813 (BIA 1968).

However, though hardships may not be extreme when considered abstractly or individually, the Board has made it clear that “[r]elevant factors, though not extreme in themselves, must be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists.” Matter of 0-J-0-, 21 I&N Dec. 381, 383 (BIA 1996) (quoting Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. at 882). The adjudicator “must consider the entire range of factors concerning hardship in their totality and determine whether the combination of hardships takes the case beyond those hardships ordinarily associated with deportation.” Id.

The actual hardship associated with an abstract hardship factor such as family separation, economic disadvantage, cultural readjustment, et cetera, differs in nature and severity depending on the unique circumstances of each case, as does the cumulative hardship a qualifying relative experiences as a result of aggregated individual hardships. See, e.g.,, 23 I&N Dec. 45, 51 (BIA 2001) (distinguishing Matter of Pilch regarding hardship faced by qualifying relatives on the basis of variations in the length of residence in the United States and the ability to speak the language of the country to which they would relocate).

For example, though family separation has been found to be a common result of inadmissibility or removal, separation from family living in the United States can also be the most important single hardship factor in considering hardship in the aggregate. Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292, 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Contreras-Buenfil v. INS, 712 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1983)); but see Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. at 24 7 (separation of spouse and children from applicant not extreme hardship due to conflicting evidence in the record and because applicant and spouse had been voluntarily separated from one another for 28 years).

Therefore, the AAO considers the totality of the circumstances in determining whether denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative.

Immediately after this case was opened, we initiated our comprehensive immigrant waiver preparation process that has allowed us to prepare winning I-601, I-601A, I-212, and 212(d)(3) waiver applications for the past 17+ years.

We provide our clients with a comprehensive waiver worksheet containing a thorough array of questions to answer about their lives.  This allows us to “brainstorm” every relevant factor (such as medical, physical, psychological, financial, legal, or other hardships, along with any other persuasive argument) that may apply. We then analyze each factor and decide upon the most effective way to present it to the USCIS in our waiver application.

Our waiver worksheet also contains a long checklist of supporting documents to gather and present based upon our experience with successful waiver applications submitted during the past 17+ years.

Overall, our waiver preparation process is constantly improved upon since we regularly prepare and submit winning immigrant waiver applications for clients who come from countries throughout the world.  We are proud to receive multiple approvals on I-601, I-601A, I-212, and 212(d)(3) waiver applications filed on behalf of our clients every single month.

The essential factors we highlighted in our 31 page legal memorandum (including 19 separate legal exhibits to prove every substantial element of our I-601 waiver case) include the following:

  • The U.S. citizen fiancée lives near her aging U.S. citizen parents and assists her father as he copes with a multitude of medical conditions. In addition to caring for her father, the U.S. citizen fiancée also struggles to manage her own health as she suffers from diabetes and mitral valve prolapse, and battles depression and anxiety.
  • The U.S. citizen fiancée harbors the emotional scars of a traumatic early life, and has been diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Persistent Depressive Disorder.
  • The U.S. citizen fiancée’s mother manages the the condition of diabetes and arthritis.
  • The U.S. citizen fiancée feels tremendous responsibility to care for her parents and continue to be physically present for them, especially as their health further deteriorates. She suffers immense anxiety at the possibility of re-locating abroad and being separated from her ailing parents, should the I-601 waiver application be denied
  • The U.S. citizen fiancée maintains employment, but she has accrued substantial credit card debt paying for flights to visit her foreign fiance abroad. More importantly, the stress of her fiancé’s uncertain immigration status, coupled with her psychiatric conditions, has caused her work performance to be negatively impacted and she is fearful of losing her job. The mental anguish she is facing prompted her to receive a referral to a counselor through the Employee Assistance Program at her place of employment.

In these types of cases, it is always important to present and prove the hardships of close U.S. citizen or lawful permanent relatives whose well-being are intimately tied to that of the qualifying relative; and demonstrate how all of the parties involved would be impacted by the immigration consequences of their situation.

Due to our efforts on behalf of this family, the I-601 Waiver application was approved. The K-1 foreign fiancé may now lawfully enter the United States; the couple can get married within 90 days of his entry into the U.S; and the foreign applicant may proceed with his process to Adjust Status to Lawful Permanent Residence thereafter.

I-601 Waiver for Multiple Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude and Adjustment of Status to Permanent Residence Approved

By Leave a Comment

I-601 Waiver for Multiple Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude and Adjustment of Status to Permanent Residence Approved

Our office received approval of both the I-485 Application to Adjust Status to Permanent Residence and the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for a citizen of Pakistan. Our client was subject to a life-time bar from being admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident due to conviction of multiple crimes involving moral turpitude under INA Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).  

Our client was previously granted asylum and living lawfully inside the United States when he was convicted of two misdemeanor crimes over 15 years ago and sentenced to 11 months of probation. Our office was engaged by the client to prepare and file the I-485 Application to Adjust Status package based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen spouse, as well as prepare and submit the I-601 “extreme hardship” waiver due to his inadmissibility for conviction of multiple CIMT (“Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude”).

We provided the client with a detailed letter going over the the I-485 Adjustment of Status process, including a comprehensive checklist of documents for him and his spouse to gather and return to our office. We prepared all of the required USCIS forms; verified that every piece of information required by the USCIS was answered accurately; and submitted a meticulously prepared Adjustment of Status package to the USCIS while simultaneously preparing the I-601 “extreme hardship” waiver.

I initiated our firm’s comprehensive process for preparation of powerful and effective immigration waiver applications.  I forwarded our Extreme Hardship Worksheet to my clients, which contains questions designed to elicit extreme hardships and other persuasive factors.  I also recommended the couple to a clinical psychologist well-versed in preparing psychological evaluations for immigration waivers and who offers a significantly discounted fee for my clients (please refer to my post on the elements of a powerful psychological evaluation for I-601 waiver applications for more details).

Once we identified the most important factors of the case, we prepared a comprehensive legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of my client’s situation met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship.” We prepared a 31 page legal memorandum thoroughly presenting relevant case law as well as the extreme hardship and discretionary factors relevant to this case.  A detailed table of exhibits providing objective proof of every crucial assertion made in our waiver was also included, as it is with all of our waiver applications.  

Section 212(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration & Nationality Act states, in pertinent parts:

(i) Any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of-

(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime . . . is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception.-Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if-

(I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age, and the crime was committed (and the alien was released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the crime) more than 5 years before the date of the application for a visa or other documentation and the date of application for admission to the United States, or

(II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed).

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held in Matter of Perez-Contreras, 20 I&N Dec. 615, 617-18 (BIA 1992), that:

[M]oral turpitude is a nebulous concept, which refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one’s fellow man or society in general.. ..In determining whether a crime involves moral turpitude, we consider whether the act is accompanied by a vicious motive or corrupt mind. Where knowing or intentional conduct is an element of an offense, we have found moral turpitude to be present. However, where the required mens rea may not be determined from the statute, moral turpitude does not inhere.

Section 212(h) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that:

(h) Waiver of subsection (a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (II), (B), (D), and (E).-The Attorney General [now the Secretary of Homeland Security, “Secretary”] may, in [her] discretion, waive the application of subparagraphs (A)(i)(I) … of subsection (a)(2) if-

(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 established to the satisfaction of the [Secretary] 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.

(2) the [Secretary], in [her] discretion, and pursuant to such terms, conditions and procedures as [she] 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.

Extreme hardship is “not a definable term of fixed and inflexible content or meaning,” but “necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.” Matter of Hwang, 10 I&N Dec. 448, 451 (BIA 1964). In Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, the Board provided a list of factors it deemed relevant in determining whether an alien has established extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565 (BIA 1999). The factors include the presence of a lawful permanent resident or United States citizen spouse or parent in this country; the qualifying relative’s family ties outside the United States; the conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties in such countries; the financial impact of departure from this country; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate. Id. The Board added that not all of the foregoing factors need be analyzed in any given case and emphasized that the list of factors was not exclusive. Id . at 566.

The Board has also held that the common or typical results of removal and inadmissibility do not constitute extreme hardship, and has listed certain individual hardship factors considered common rather than extreme. These factors include: economic disadvantage, loss of current employment, inability to maintain one’s present standard of living, inability to pursue a chosen profession, separation from family members, severing community ties, cultural readjustment after living in the United States for many years, cultural adjustment of qualifying relatives who have never lived outside the United States, inferior economic and educational opportunities in the foreign country, or inferior medical facilities in the foreign country. See generally Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. at 568; Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627, 632-33 (BIA 1996); Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880, 883 (BIA 1994); Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. 245, 246-47 (Comm’r 1984); Matter of Kim, 15 I&N Dec. 88, 89-90 (BIA 1974); Matter of Shaughnessy, 12 I&N Dec. 810, 813 (BIA 1968).

However, though hardships may not be extreme when considered abstractly or individually, the Board has made it clear that “[r]elevant factors, though not extreme in themselves, must be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists.” Matter of 0-J-0-, 21 I&N Dec. 381, 383 (BIA 1996) (quoting Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. at 882). The adjudicator “must consider the entire range of factors concerning hardship in their totality and determine whether the combination of hardships takes the case beyond those hardships ordinarily associated with deportation.” Id.

The actual hardship associated with an abstract hardship factor such as family separation, economic disadvantage, cultural readjustment, et cetera, differs in nature and severity depending on the unique circumstances of each case, as does the cumulative hardship a qualifying relative experiences as a result of aggregated individual hardships. See, e.g., Matter of Bing Chih Kao and Mei Tsui Lin, 23 I&N Dec. 45, 51 (BIA 2001) (distinguishing Matter of Pilch regarding hardship faced by qualifying relatives on the basis of variations in the length of residence in the United States and the ability to speak the language of the country to which they would relocate).

For example, though family separation has been found to be a common result of inadmissibility or removal, separation from family living in the United States can also be the most important single hardship factor in considering hardship in the aggregate. Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292, 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Contreras-Buenfil v. INS, 712 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1983)); but see Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. at 24 7 (separation of spouse and children from applicant not extreme hardship due to conflicting evidence in the record and because applicant and spouse had been voluntarily separated from one another for 28 years).

Therefore, the AAO considers the totality of the circumstances in determining whether denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative.

Some of the favorable factors that contributed to approval of this I-601 “extreme hardship” waiver for conviction of multiple crimes involving moral turpitude include the following:

  • The U.S. citizen spouse suffers from three major psychiatric disorders: Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Persistent Depressive “Dysthymic” Disorder, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder – Chronic, with a significant family history of psychological illness.
  • The U.S. citizen spouse has a personal history of trauma that has precipitated the development of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which has now been further exacerbated by the threatened separation from her husband
  • The U.S. citizen spouse suffers from asthma, sciatica, and pain due to ailments associated with advancing age. She can only manage her daily life and responsibilities due to the emotional and psychological support and physical assistance she receives from her husband
  • The U.S. citizen spouse’s emotional and psychological status is considered fragile, and long-term separation from her husband will place her at substantial risk for psychiatric decompensation according to a psycho-social evaluation conducted by a licensed clinical psychologist
  • The couple have significant financial debt, and are dependent on the husband’s meager income (with assistance from their adult children), to survive economically.

Our I-601 waiver also thoroughly addressed how the possible scenario of relocation from the U.S. (should the waiver not be granted and the couple be forced to relocate to Pakistan) would also cause extreme hardship to the U.S. citizen spouse:

  • The couple would live in poverty and in constant fear of assault as a member of a persecuted religious minority in Pakistan;
  • The U.S. citizen wife would be exposed to high risk of exposure to infectious disease in a country with third-world level medical infrastructure;
  • The U.S. citizen spouse would lose access to the quality health care needed to monitor and mitigate her asthma and sciatica; no longer be able to obtain and afford necessary medications, nor be able to receive the emergency medical care needed to potentially save her life in a medical crisis;
  • The U.S. citizen spouse would be unable to afford health insurance in Pakistan;
  • The U.S. citizen spouse would lose access to a medical infrastructure that ensures prescriptions are refilled in a timely manner;
  • The U.S. citizen spouse would lose access to competent mental health treatment services at a time when she will be under extraordinary stress and most in need of such services;
  • The U.S. citizen spouse would face stigma associated with mental illness and her religious status, impairing her re-integration into Pakistan’s culture and society;
  • The U.S. citizen spouse would have virtually no job prospects given that she has little employment experience, very limited education, the high rate of unemployment in Pakistan, and her advancing age;
  • The U.S. citizen spouse would face discrimination because of her religious status in a country that has legalized discrimination and has a history of assaults on this minority;
  • The U.S. citizen spouse would be wholly separated from her family in the U.S. and unable to afford to return to the U.S. on an emergency basis.

Extreme hardship is a requirement for eligibility, but once established it is but one favorable discretionary factor to be considered. Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296, 301 (BIA 1996). For waivers of inadmissibility, the burden is on the applicant to establish that a grant of a waiver of inadmissibility is warranted in the exercise of discretion. Id. at 299. The adverse factors evidencing an alien’s undesirability as a permanent resident must be balanced with the social and humane considerations presented on his behalf to determine whether the grant of relief in the exercise of discretion appears to be in the best interests of this country. Id. at 300.  In Matter of Mendez-Moralez, in evaluating whether section 212(h)(1)(B) relief is warranted in the exercise of discretion, the BIA stated that:

The factors adverse to the applicant include the nature and underlying circumstances of the exclusion ground at issue, the presence of additional significant violations of this country’s immigration laws, the existence of a criminal record and, if so, its nature, recency and seriousness, and the presence of other evidence indicative of an alien’s bad character or undesirability as a permanent resident of this country . . . . The favorable considerations include family ties in the United States, residence of long duration in this country (particularly where the alien began his residency at a young age), evidence of hardship to the alien and his family if he is excluded and deported, service in this country’s Armed Forces, a history of stable employment, the existence of property or business ties, evidence of value and service to the community, evidence of genuine rehabilitation if a criminal record exists, and other evidence attesting to the alien’s good character (e.g., affidavits from family, friends, and responsible community representatives). Id. at 301.

The BIA further states that upon review of the record as a whole, a balancing of the equities and adverse matters must be made to determine whether discretion should be favorably exercised. The equities that the applicant for relief must bring forward to establish that he merits a favorable exercise of administrative discretion will depend in each case on the nature and circumstances of the ground of exclusion sought to be waived and on the presence of any additional adverse matters, and as the negative factors grow more serious, it becomes incumbent upon the applicant to introduce additional offsetting favorable evidence. Id. at 301.

In this case, we also discussed and presented proof of every factor we determined to be important for purposes of securing approval of the I-601 waiver.  We determine these factors based upon close analysis of the clients’ personal situations as well as upon my experience of obtaining approval of I-601, I-212, I-601A, and 212(d)(3) waivers for the past 17 years.   These factors included but were not limited to:

  • A summary discussion of the convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude, as well as any extenuating circumstances that led to the violations and the corresponding the sentence received
  • The applicant’s long period of residence and productive service inside the United States including the presence of a U.S. citizen spouse and several U.S. citizen children
  • The applicant being well-respected in the local religious community of his faith
  • The applicant’s tremendous efforts to raise law-abiding children and support their higher education, which led to all of his children attaining bachelor-level university degrees or higher
  • Numerous sworn-affidavits by family, friends, and prominent officials in a position to judge the character and rehabilitation of the applicant

As a result of our efforts, both the I-485 Application to Adjust Status to Permanent Residence and the I-601 Application of Waiver of Inadmissiblity were approved and this couple can continue to reside lawfully inside the United States.

I-601 Waiver Approved for Multiple Convictions of Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

By Leave a Comment

I-601 Waiver Approved for Multiple Convictions of Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

The applicant is a citizen of India who was found inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), for having been convicted of two separate crimes involving moral turpitude: robbery and theft.

The applicant sought a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Act in order to reside in the United States with his U.S. citizen spouse.

Section 212(a)(2)(A) of the Act states, in pertinent parts:

(i) Any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of-

(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime . . . is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception.-Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if-

(I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age, and the crime was committed (and the alien was released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the crime) more than 5 years before the date of the application for a visa or other documentation and the date of application for admission to the United States, or

(II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed).

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held in Matter of Perez-Contreras, 20 I&N Dec. 615, 617-18 (BIA 1992), that:

[M]oral turpitude is a nebulous concept, which refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one’s fellow man or society in general.. ..In determining whether a crime involves moral turpitude, we consider whether the act is accompanied by a vicious motive or corrupt mind. Where knowing or intentional conduct is an element of an offense, we have found moral turpitude to be present. However, where the required mens rea may not be determined from the statute, moral turpitude does not inhere.

Section 212(h) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that:

(h) Waiver of subsection (a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (II), (B), (D), and (E).-The Attorney General [now the Secretary of Homeland Security, “Secretary”] may, in [her] discretion, waive the application of subparagraphs (A)(i)(I) … of subsection (a)(2) if-

(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 established to the satisfaction of the [Secretary] 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.

(2) the [Secretary], in [her] discretion, and pursuant to such terms, conditions and procedures as [she] 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.

Extreme hardship is “not a definable term of fixed and inflexible content or meaning,” but “necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.” Matter of Hwang, 10 I&N Dec. 448, 451 (BIA 1964). In Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, the Board provided a list of factors it deemed relevant in determining whether an alien has established extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565 (BIA 1999). The factors include the presence of a lawful permanent resident or United States citizen spouse or parent in this country; the qualifying relative’s family ties outside the United States; the conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties in such countries; the financial impact of departure from this country; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate. Id. The Board added that not all of the foregoing factors need be analyzed in any given case and emphasized that the list of factors was not exclusive. Id . at 566.

The Board has also held that the common or typical results of removal and inadmissibility do not constitute extreme hardship, and has listed certain individual hardship factors considered common rather than extreme. These factors include: economic disadvantage, loss of current employment, inability to maintain one’s present standard of living, inability to pursue a chosen profession, separation from family members, severing community ties, cultural readjustment after living in the United States for many years, cultural adjustment of qualifying relatives who have never lived outside the United States, inferior economic and educational opportunities in the foreign country, or inferior medical facilities in the foreign country. See generally Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. at 568; Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627, 632-33 (BIA 1996); Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880, 883 (BIA 1994); Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. 245, 246-47 (Comm’r 1984); Matter of Kim, 15 I&N Dec. 88, 89-90 (BIA 1974); Matter of Shaughnessy, 12 I&N Dec. 810, 813 (BIA 1968).

However, though hardships may not be extreme when considered abstractly or individually, the Board has made it clear that “[r]elevant factors, though not extreme in themselves, must be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists.” Matter of 0-J-0-, 21 I&N Dec. 381, 383 (BIA 1996) (quoting Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. at 882). The adjudicator “must consider the entire range of factors concerning hardship in their totality and determine whether the combination of hardships takes the case beyond those hardships ordinarily associated with deportation.” Id.

The actual hardship associated with an abstract hardship factor such as family separation, economic disadvantage, cultural readjustment, et cetera, differs in nature and severity depending on the unique circumstances of each case, as does the cumulative hardship a qualifying relative experiences as a result of aggregated individual hardships. See, e.g., Matter of Bing Chih Kao and Mei Tsui Lin, 23 I&N Dec. 45, 51 (BIA 2001) (distinguishing Matter of Pilch regarding hardship faced by qualifying relatives on the basis of variations in the length of residence in the United States and the ability to speak the language of the country to which they would relocate).

For example, though family separation has been found to be a common result of inadmissibility or removal, separation from family living in the United States can also be the most important single hardship factor in considering hardship in the aggregate. Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292, 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Contreras-Buenfil v. INS, 712 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1983)); but see Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. at 24 7 (separation of spouse and children from applicant not extreme hardship due to conflicting evidence in the record and because applicant and spouse had been voluntarily separated from one another for 28 years).

Therefore, the AAO considers the totality of the circumstances in determining whether denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative.

Some of the favorable factors that contributed to approval of this I-601 “extreme hardship” waiver for convictions of multiple crimes involving moral turpitude include the following:

  • The qualifying relatives for purposes of the I-601 waiver include the U.S. citizen spouse and two U.S. citizen children, all of whom reside in the United States
  • The U.S. citizen children are already developing behavioral problems due to separation from their father, including the youngest child refusing to eat and becoming critically underweight
  • The U.S. citizen wife has been diagnosed with psychological disorders, with a personal and family history of chronic illness and anxiety
  • The Indian husband’s income is not sufficient to support two households (his own and that of his family in the U.S.), and this is causing severe financial stress that is exacerbating the physical, psychological, and emotion state of the U.S. citizen wife and their children
  • The U.S. citizen wife suffers from a physical ailment, which only got worse during her attempted residence in India to be with her husband

Extreme hardship is a requirement for eligibility, but once established it is but one favorable discretionary factor to be considered. Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296, 301 (BIA 1996). For waivers of inadmissibility, the burden is on the applicant to establish that a grant of a waiver of inadmissibility is warranted in the exercise of discretion. Id. at 299. The adverse factors evidencing an alien’s undesirability as a permanent resident must be balanced with the social and humane considerations presented on his behalf to determine whether the grant of relief in the exercise of discretion appears to be in the best interests of this country. Id. at 300.  In Matter of Mendez-Moralez, in evaluating whether section 212(h)(1)(B) relief is warranted in the exercise of discretion, the BIA stated that:

The factors adverse to the applicant include the nature and underlying circumstances of the exclusion ground at issue, the presence of additional significant violations of this country’s immigration laws, the existence of a criminal record and, if so, its
nature, recency and seriousness, and the presence of other evidence indicative of an alien’s bad character or undesirability as a permanent resident of this country . . . . The favorable considerations include family ties in the United States, residence of long duration in this country (particularly where the alien began his residency at a young age), evidence of hardship to the alien and his family if he is excluded and deported, service in this country’s Armed Forces, a history of stable employment, the existence of property or business ties, evidence of value and service to the community, evidence of genuine rehabilitation if a criminal record exists, and other evidence attesting to the alien’s good character (e.g., affidavits from family, friends, and responsible community representatives). Id. at 301.

The BIA further states that upon review of the record as a whole, a balancing of the equities and adverse matters must be made to determine whether discretion should be favorably exercised. The equities that the applicant for relief must bring forward to establish that he merits a favorable exercise of administrative discretion will depend in each case on the nature and circumstances of the ground of exclusion sought to be waived and on the presence of any additional adverse matters, and as the negative factors grow more serious, it becomes incumbent upon the applicant to introduce additional offsetting favorable evidence. Id. at 301.

In this case, we also discussed and presented proof of every factor we determined to be important for purposes of securing approval of the I-601 waiver.  We determine these factors based upon close analysis of the clients’ personal situations as well as upon my experience of obtaining approval of I-601, I-212, I-601A, and 212(d)(3) waivers for the past 15 years.   These factors included but were not limited to:

  • A summary discussion of the convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude, as well as any extenuating circumstances that led to the violations and the corresponding the sentence received
  • The applicant’s employment for a prestigious multinational company
  • The applicant’s involvement in humanitarian efforts
  • The applicant’s acceptance at one of the most prestigious universities in the world for graduate-level study
  • Numerous sworn-affidavits by family, colleagues, and prominent officials in a position to judge the character and rehabilitation of the applicant

As a result of our efforts, the I-601 waiver was approved and this family now resides together lawfully inside the United States.

I-601 Waiver Pursuant to INA 212(h) Approved for South Korean Applicant

By Leave a Comment

I-601 Waiver Pursuant to INA 212(h) Approved for South Korean Applicant

Our office received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for a client who was subject to a lifetime ban from being admitted to the United States pursuant to  INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).  Our client was charged and convicted of misappropriating monies from the bank account of another individual in 1998, for which offense she was fined the equivalent of USD$2000, which fine she has paid. That conviction triggered the lifetime inadmissibility bar pursuant to INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) “Crimes involving moral turpitude.”

The U.S. citizen sibling petitioner contacted me after her sister was denied admission to the U.S. following her consular interview at the U.S. embassy in Seoul, South Korea.  A comprehensive waiver package was subsequently prepared by our office based on the fact that more than 15 years have passed since she was convicted of criminal offense in her home country of South Korea; the clear evidence that her admission would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety or security of the United States; and that she has been fully rehabilitated.

Legal Requirements of the § 212(h) Waiver

Section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a discretionary waiver for the following criminal grounds of inadmissibility:

  • Crimes involving moral turpitude (subparagraph 212(a)(2)(A)(I))
  • Multiple criminal convictions (212(a)(2)(B))
  • Prostitution and commercial vice (212(a)(2)(D))
  • Certain aliens who have asserted immunity from prosecution (212(a)(2)(E))
  • An offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana (212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II))

INA 212(h)(1)(A) provides that certain grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)-(II), (B), and (E) of the Act may be waived in the case of an alien who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that:

  • the activities for which she is inadmissible occurred more than fifteen years before the date of the alien’s application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status;
  • the admission would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the U.S.; and
  • the alien has been rehabilitated;

INA 212(h)(1)(B) provides that certain grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)-(II), (B), (D)-(E) of the Act may be waived in the case of an alien who:

  • has a parent, spouse, son, or daughter who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States; and
  • the parent, spouse, son, or daughter would suffer “extreme hardship” on account of the alien’s ineligibility to immigrate

Waiver applicants must also show that their application should be granted as a matter of discretion, with the favorable factors outweighing the unfavorable factors in his or her case.

In support of my client’s I-601 waiver application, I prepared a comprehensive legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of her situation met the legal standards of INA 212(h)(1)(A).

I thoroughly demonstrated that my client was rehabilitated and her admission not contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the U.S., based upon her long-history as a successful small business owner; her membership and participation in various church and charitable programs; as well as her selfless dedication to the education of her children, which played an integral role in allowing her son to attend medical school after the death of his father.

I showed that following her conviction and later, after the death of her husband, she reached a profound “turning point” in her life.  She was baptized into the Christian faith and became a devout and ardent member of her church.  She committed herself to a number of charitable activities while also working tirelessly to support her children and their education.   Her conduct as well as a myriad of affidavits by friends, colleagues, and family proved that she posed absolutely no risk to the safety or welfare of the U.S., and in fact, would contribute to it if admitted as a permanent resident.

It is often important in waiver applications to demonstrate (when possible) an important turning point in an applicant’s life, which provides a marker that the USCIS officer can point to and remember has having effected a fundamental change in the applicant’s outlook and conduct.

An extensive table of exhibits also listed a variety of evidence in support of a showing of good moral character and rehabilitation.

As a result of our efforts, our client was approved for the 601 waiver and subsequently, received her lawful permanent residence to join her family in the United States.

I-601 Waiver Approved for U.S. Military Spouse Inadmissible due to Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

By Leave a Comment

I-601 Waiver Approved for U.S. Military Spouse Inadmissible due to Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

Our office received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for the foreign wife of a member of the U.S. Armed Forces  who is subject to a life-time bar from being admitted to the United States for convictions of two separate crimes involving moral turpitude under INA Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).  The foreign wife was also convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol in a separate incident.

The U.S. citizen husband is an active member of the U.S. Armed Forces, works on base in the United States, and became separated from his foreign wife and U.S. citizen son after a finding of inadmissibility by the US embassy during his wife’s immigrant visa consular interview.

He contacted our office due to our 14+ year history of securing approval of I-601 and I-212 immigrant waivers in sensitive and critical situations such as this one.

Section 212(a)(2)(A) of the Act states, in pertinent parts:

(i) Any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of-

(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime . . . is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception.-Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if-

(I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age, and the crime was committed (and the alien was released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the crime) more than 5 years before the date of the application for a visa or other documentation and the date of application for admission to the United States, or

(II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed).

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held in Matter of Perez-Contreras, 20 I&N Dec. 615, 617-18 (BIA 1992), that:

[M]oral turpitude is a nebulous concept, which refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one’s fellow man or society in general.. ..In determining whether a crime involves moral turpitude, we consider whether the act is accompanied by a vicious motive or corrupt mind. Where knowing or intentional conduct is an element of an offense, we have found moral turpitude to be present. However, where the required mens rea may not be determined from the statute, moral turpitude does not inhere.

Section 212(h) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that:

(h) Waiver of subsection (a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (II), (B), (D), and (E).-The Attorney General [now the Secretary of Homeland Security, “Secretary”] may, in [her] discretion, waive the application of subparagraphs (A)(i)(I) … of subsection (a)(2) if-

(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 established to the satisfaction of the [Secretary] 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.

(2) the [Secretary], in [her] discretion, and pursuant to such terms, conditions and procedures as [she] 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.

Extreme hardship is “not a definable term of fixed and inflexible content or meaning,” but “necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.” Matter of Hwang, 10 I&N Dec. 448, 451 (BIA 1964). In Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, the Board provided a list of factors it deemed relevant in determining whether an alien has established extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565 (BIA 1999). The factors include the presence of a lawful permanent resident or United States citizen spouse or parent in this country; the qualifying relative’s family ties outside the United States; the conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties in such countries; the financial impact of departure from this country; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate. Id. The Board added that not all of the foregoing factors need be analyzed in any given case and emphasized that the list of factors was not exclusive. Id . at 566.

The Board has also held that the common or typical results of removal and inadmissibility do not constitute extreme hardship, and has listed certain individual hardship factors considered common rather than extreme. These factors include: economic disadvantage, loss of current employment, inability to maintain one’s present standard of living, inability to pursue a chosen profession, separation from family members, severing community ties, cultural readjustment after living in the United States for many years, cultural adjustment of qualifying relatives who have never lived outside the United States, inferior economic and educational opportunities in the foreign country, or inferior medical facilities in the foreign country. See generally Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. at 568; Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627, 632-33 (BIA 1996); Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880, 883 (BIA 1994);Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. 245, 246-47 (Comm’r 1984); Matter of Kim, 15 I&N Dec. 88, 89-90 (BIA 1974); Matter of Shaughnessy, 12 I&N Dec. 810, 813 (BIA 1968).

However, though hardships may not be extreme when considered abstractly or individually, the Board has made it clear that “[r]elevant factors, though not extreme in themselves, must be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists.” Matter of 0-J-0-, 21 I&N Dec. 381, 383 (BIA 1996) (quoting Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. at 882). The adjudicator “must consider the entire range of factors concerning hardship in their totality and determine whether the combination of hardships takes the case beyond those hardships ordinarily associated with deportation.” Id.

The actual hardship associated with an abstract hardship factor such as family separation, economic disadvantage, cultural readjustment, et cetera, differs in nature and severity depending on the unique circumstances of each case, as does the cumulative hardship a qualifying relative experiences as a result of aggregated individual hardships. See, e.g.,, 23 I&N Dec. 45, 51 (BIA 2001) (distinguishing Matter of Pilch regarding hardship faced by qualifying relatives on the basis of variations in the length of residence in the United States and the ability to speak the language of the country to which they would relocate).

For example, though family separation has been found to be a common result of inadmissibility or removal, separation from family living in the United States can also be the most important single hardship factor in considering hardship in the aggregate. Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292, 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Contreras-Buenfil v. INS, 712 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1983)); but see Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. at 24 7 (separation of spouse and children from applicant not extreme hardship due to conflicting evidence in the record and because applicant and spouse had been voluntarily separated from one another for 28 years).

Therefore, the AAO considers the totality of the circumstances in determining whether denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative.

Immediately after this case was opened, we initiated our immigrant waiver preparation process.

We always provide a comprehensive waiver worksheet containing a thorough array of questions for our clients to answer about their lives.  This allows us to “brainstorm” every relevant factor (such as medical, physical, psychological, financial, legal, or other hardships) that may apply. We then analyze each factor and decide upon the most effective way to present it to the USCIS in our waiver application.

Our waiver worksheet also contains a long checklist of supporting documents to gather and present based upon our experience with successful waiver applications submitted during the past 12+ years.

Overall, our waiver preparation process is constantly improved upon since we regularly prepare and submit winning immigrant waiver applications for clients who come from countries throughout the word.  We are proud to receive multiple approvals on I-601, I-601A, I-212, and 212(d)(3) waiver applications filed on behalf of our clients every single month.

The favorable factors we highlighted in this I-601 Waiver case includes the following:

  • the U.S. citizen husband is a member of the U.S. Armed Forces who works on the maintenance and operation of sophisticated military vehicles.  In my experience, spouses and immediate relatives of members of the U.S. Armed Forces are generally given preference on their waiver applications.  However, it is still important to discuss the duties carried out by the member of the U.S. Armed Forces; their role in the defense of the interests of the United States; as well as how their ability to carry out their duties is impacted by the immigration-related consequences of separation (or re-location).
  • the U.S. citizen husband suffers from mood disorders and physical ailments that are documented to be worsening as a result of separation from his foreign wife and U.S. citizen son.  He is a victim of verbal and physical abuse from childhood, and carries the emotional scars from the prior abuse to this day.
  • the U.S. citizen husband helps to care for his elderly mother, who is also victim of past domestic abuse.  It would be emotionally traumatic to force him to choose between life with his family abroad at the cost of abandoning his mother who needs her son nearby.
  • the U.S. citizen husband is attempting to pay for two homes during this separation with his wife and son.  The expenses involved in doing this (combined with travel to a foreign country to visit his family) is outstripping his income and causing severe financial hardship.
  • the U.S. citizen husband does not know the native language of his wife’s country of origin, would face difficulty obtaining appropriate psychological treatment in English there, and would have to resign from the U.S. military to re-locate abroad to be with his family.  Being forced to resign from life-long service to the U.S. Armed Forces would aggravate his precious psychological state and worsen every aspect of his life.

Due to our efforts on behalf of this family, the I-601 Waiver application was approved and this family can soon reside together in the United States.  The U.S. citizen husband can also continue his service to the United States Armed Forces and play an integral role in safe-guarding the lives of his fellow servicemen.

Get Answers Now

You may request a Free Immigration Consultation.

Check Out Our Client Reviews

Read what people like you are saying about us on Facebook in our Client Testimonials.

Recent Posts