Smart Immigration Lawyer

Two New BIA Decisions on Criminal Inadmissibility (October 2026): What Matter of Ozuna Mendoza and Matter of Mercader Mean for Waiver Applicants

By Leave a Comment

Two New BIA Decisions on Criminal Inadmissibility (October 2026): What Matter of Ozuna Mendoza and Matter of Mercader Mean for Waiver Applicants

In the last week of October 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) published two precedent decisions on criminal inadmissibility that make it easier for the government to establish criminal grounds. Neither case was a waiver case, but both affect who needs a waiver, and whether a waiver is available at all.

Case at a Glance

  • Matter of Ozuna Mendoza, 30 I&N Dec. 177 (BIA Oct. 26, 2026): A lawful permanent resident returning from abroad was properly treated as an applicant for admission, and the charge that she was inadmissible as a suspected drug trafficker was sustained under INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(i).
  • Matter of Mercader, 30 I&N Dec. 185 (BIA Oct. 27, 2026): Second-degree assault and battery under S.C. Code § 16-3-600(D)(1) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).

Matter of Ozuna Mendoza: “Reason to Believe” Drug Trafficking

A green card holder normally is not “seeking admission” when she returns from a trip abroad. Under INA § 101(a)(13)(C)(iii), that changes if DHS proves by clear and convincing evidence that she “has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States.”

In this case, about 200 pounds of methamphetamine were found hidden in the respondent’s vehicle at the border. She also had about $8,000 in cash. The Immigration Judge believed her claim that she didn’t know about the drugs. The BIA reversed. It found her testimony inconsistent, evasive and implausible, and it held that even if she didn’t know, she was willfully blind: she lent her car to a friend with known ties to traffickers and asked no questions.

There was no conviction. The BIA held that circumstantial evidence and the lack of credibility were enough to give the government “reason to believe” she was a knowing participant in drug trafficking.

Why this matters for waivers: The INA § 212(h) waiver cannot waive a “reason to believe” drug-trafficking finding under § 212(a)(2)(C). No extreme-hardship waiver exists for K-1 fiancée visa, immigrant visa or adjustment of status applicants on this ground. For visitors and other nonimmigrants, the INA § 212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver may still be an option. Ozuna Mendoza shows how little evidence the government may need: no arrest, no charge, and no conviction.

Matter of Mercader: Reckless Assault Can Be a CIMT

The BIA held that South Carolina second-degree assault and battery is categorically a CIMT. Its minimum mental state is recklessness, and it requires actual or attempted “moderate bodily injury.” The Board said that moderate injury, short of serious bodily injury, is enough of an aggravating factor. It also rejected the Immigration Judge’s reliance on the offense being labeled “non-violent” and on the light sentence imposed.

Mercader arose as a deportability case under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(i). The same CIMT analysis applies to the inadmissibility ground at INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), which matters for anyone applying for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status.

Why this matters for waivers: Many applicants assume a misdemeanor-level assault, or a short sentence, cannot be a CIMT. Under Mercader, that assumption is risky. The petty offense exception generally will not help when the offense carries a possible sentence of more than one year. When it does not apply, the applicant usually needs a § 212(h) waiver through the I-601 waiver process, based on either:

  • extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, parent, son or daughter, or
  • the passage of 15 years since the conduct, plus rehabilitation.

Who Is Affected by These Criminal Inadmissibility Decisions

  • Green card holders who travel and have any arrest, investigation or border incident involving drugs.
  • K-1 fiancé(e) visa, immigrant visa and adjustment applicants with assault, battery or other “reckless” offenses, especially from South Carolina, and anyone with a similar statute elsewhere.
  • Applicants who were told a conviction “doesn’t count” because it was minor or the sentence was short.

What to Do Now About Criminal Inadmissibility

  1. Have your criminal record reviewed before you file, travel or attend a consular interview. Get certified court dispositions and the exact statute and subsection.
  2. Green card holders with any drug-related history should get legal advice before leaving the United States.
  3. If a CIMT is likely, plan the § 212(h) waiver early. Extreme hardship evidence takes time to build.
  4. If a “reason to believe” finding is possible, understand that no immigrant waiver exists. The strategy has to focus on contesting the finding itself.

Criminal Inadmissibility: Primary Sources

If you or a family member needs help with criminal inadmissibility or an I-601, I-601A, I-212 or 212(h) waiver, you may request a Free Immigration Consultation.

Related Waiver Approvals

This post is general information, not legal advice. Every case is different, and you should consult an immigration attorney about your specific situation. Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict the outcome of any future legal matter.

I-601 and I-212 Waivers Approved for Mexican Husband of U.S. Citizen After Prior Removal and Crime Involving Moral Turpitude

By Leave a Comment

I-601 and I-212 Waivers Approved for Mexican Husband of U.S. Citizen After Prior Removal and Crime Involving Moral Turpitude

Case at a Glance

  • Waivers approved: I-601 and I-212 waivers (an I-601 waiver under INA 212(h) and I-212 permission to reapply for admission)
  • Grounds of inadmissibility: crime involving moral turpitude, INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); prior removal, INA 212(a)(9)(A)(ii)
  • Applicant: Mexican husband of a U.S. citizen
  • Qualifying relative: U.S. citizen wife
  • Result: Both waivers approved; the family was able to return to the United States together

Our office obtained approval of I-601 and I-212 waivers for the Mexican husband of a U.S. citizen wife: the I-601 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility and the I-212 Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission. Our client was inadmissible to the United States for a crime involving moral turpitude under INA Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), and for having been previously removed from the United States under INA Section 212(a)(9)(A)(ii).

Our client had lived lawfully in the United States for a number of years, where he met and married his U.S. citizen wife and started a family. He was later convicted of a federal offense that was deemed a crime involving moral turpitude, served his sentence, and was removed to Mexico. His wife and their U.S. citizen children chose to follow him to Mexico rather than split up the family. His wife’s I-130 Petition for Alien Relative had been approved, but our client could not immigrate to the United States unless both waivers were granted.

Note: when I-601 and I-212 waivers are filed together, preparing a winning I-601 waiver (demonstrating extreme hardship to the qualifying relative and a case that merits favorable discretion) generally allows the applicant to meet the standard for approval of the I-212 waiver as well.

The I-212 Waiver: Permission to Reapply for Admission

The I-212 waiver is required because Section 212(a)(9)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides, in pertinent part:

(ii) Other aliens. – Any alien not described in clause (i) who – (I) has been ordered removed under section 240 or any other provision of law, or (II) departed the United States while an order of removal was outstanding, and who seeks admission within 10 years of the date of such alien’s departure or removal (or within 20 years of such date in the case of a second or subsequent removal or at any time in the case of an alien convicted of an aggravated felony) is inadmissible.

(iii) Exception. – Clauses (i) and (ii) shall not apply to an alien seeking admission within a period if, prior to the date of the alien’s reembarkation at a place outside the United States or attempt to be admitted from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General [now the Secretary of Homeland Security] has consented to the alien’s reapplying for admission.

In other words, a person who was removed must remain outside the United States for the required period unless USCIS first grants permission to reapply for admission on Form I-212.

In Matter of Tin, 14 I&N Dec. 371 (1973), and Matter of Lee, 17 I&N Dec. 275 (1978), the Board of Immigration Appeals established the standards used to decide applications for permission to reapply. In Matter of Tin, the BIA held that all pertinent circumstances should be considered, including: 1. the basis for deportation; 2. recency of deportation; 3. the applicant’s length of residence in the United States; 4. the applicant’s good moral character; 5. the applicant’s respect for law and order; 6. evidence of reformation and rehabilitation; 7. the applicant’s family responsibilities; 8. any inadmissibility under other sections of law; 9. hardship involving the applicant and others; 10. the need for the applicant’s services in the United States; and 11. whether the applicant has an approved immigrant or non-immigrant visa petition.

In Matter of Lee, the BIA explained that INA 212(a)(9)(A)(iii) is intended to be remedial rather than punitive, and that a record of immigration violations standing alone does not conclusively establish a lack of good moral character. Only “an evinced callous attitude toward violating the immigration laws without a hint of reformation of character” should be weighed heavily against the applicant.

The I-601 Waiver for a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude

Section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides, in pertinent part:

The Attorney General [now the Secretary of Homeland Security] may, in his discretion, waive the application of subparagraphs (A)(i)(I), (B), (D), and (E) 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 is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the alien’s denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to the United States citizen or lawfully resident spouse, parent, son, or daughter of such alien . . . .

Because our client’s wife is a U.S. citizen, he could seek the I-601 waiver under INA 212(h)(1)(B) by showing that his continued inadmissibility would result in extreme hardship to her.

Neither the statute nor the regulations define extreme hardship. USCIS sets out how its officers apply the standard in the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 9, Part B: the hardship must exceed what is usual or expected, but it need not be unique, and the standard is less demanding than the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” required for cancellation of removal. The Policy Manual also recognizes that Congress intended these waivers to serve family unity, and the applicant has to prove hardship only by a preponderance of the evidence.

Relevant factors include family ties in the United States and abroad, conditions in the country of relocation, financial impact and health conditions (Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999)), and the Board of Immigration Appeals has held that these factors “must be considered in the aggregate” (Matter of O-J-O-, 21 I&N Dec. 381 (BIA 1996)). The psychological impact of separation or relocation on the qualifying relative is a recognized factor, officers may not substitute their own medical opinion for that of a medical professional, and a qualifying relative’s serious medical condition can weigh heavily in favor of extreme hardship. The Ninth Circuit has also recognized that separation from family living in the United States may be the most important single hardship factor (Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 1998)).

Once extreme hardship is established, USCIS decides whether the waiver should be granted as a matter of discretion, weighing the positive factors in the case against the conduct that caused the inadmissibility (Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996), itself a 212(h) waiver case).

How We Prepared the I-601 and I-212 Waivers

Our work on this case began, as it does with every waiver case, with our Waiver Worksheet package: an in-depth set of questions about our clients’ lives that helps us uncover every hardship and discretionary factor that may apply (medical, psychological, financial, family and country conditions), together with a detailed checklist of supporting documents to gather. We have refined this process over 24 years of preparing I-601, I-601A, I-212 and 212(d)(3) waivers for clients around the world, and it is designed to keep the process as smooth and efficient as possible for our clients, with clear guidance at each step. We also closely follow changes in the law and USCIS policy so that each waiver we prepare reflects current standards, and we are proud to regularly receive approvals of I-601, I-601A, I-212 and 212(d)(3) waivers on behalf of our clients.

Once we identified the most important factors of the case, we prepared a comprehensive legal brief of more than 40 pages going over how the facts and circumstances of our clients’ lives met the legal standards of both Matter of Tin and Matter of Lee for the I-212 waiver and the “extreme hardship” standard for the I-601 waiver, together with a collection of 18 separate exhibits. These included a psycho-social evaluation by a licensed clinical psychologist (see our post on the elements of a powerful psychological evaluation), medical and financial documentation, country conditions research, and numerous letters of reference attesting to our client’s character and rehabilitation. Throughout the brief, we told the family’s story in a way that personalized their situation and showed why the U.S. citizen wife was especially vulnerable to the hardships of both separation and continued life abroad, and a detailed table of exhibits gave objective proof of every key assertion, as it does in all of our waiver applications.

Key Factors in the I-601 and I-212 Waivers

The key factors we highlighted in the I-601 and I-212 waivers included the following:

  • The U.S. citizen wife has been diagnosed with three major psychiatric disorders: Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Persistent Depressive “Dysthymic” Disorder, and Panic Disorder. Her psychological status was assessed as fragile, and long-term separation from her husband would place her at substantial risk of psychiatric decompensation.
  • The U.S. citizen wife also manages chronic medical conditions and relies on her husband for daily emotional, psychological, and physical support.
  • The couple’s U.S. citizen children, living in Mexico, faced harassment and discrimination at school because of their U.S. citizenship, and lacked access to adequate education and health care.
  • Our client is the family’s sole source of financial support. If the family returned to the United States without him, his income could not support two households, and his wife would face financial destitution while being unable to work and care for the children at the same time.
  • Remaining in Mexico permanently would expose the U.S. citizen wife to inadequate mental health and medical care, safety risks, and almost no employment prospects, since she does not speak Spanish.
  • Our client accepted full responsibility for his past conduct, completed his sentence, and fully complied with the terms of his removal for roughly a decade.
  • Since his removal, he has lived as a law-abiding, hard-working professional, earned advanced degrees, and been described by employers, co-workers, and longtime friends as honest, responsible, and devoted to his family.

We showed that the hardships to the U.S. citizen wife and children were not only severe in the present, but would continue to worsen whether the family remained in Mexico or separated, and that our client’s genuine rehabilitation and strong equities clearly warranted a favorable exercise of discretion.

Outcome of the I-601 and I-212 Waivers

As a result of our efforts, both I-601 and I-212 waivers were approved. The family was able to return to the United States together after more than a decade of hardship abroad.

If you or a family member needs an I-601, I-601A, or I-212 waiver, you may request a Free Immigration Consultation.

Related Waiver Approvals

Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict the outcome of any future legal matter.

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

By

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.  

Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict the outcome of any future legal matter.

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

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.

Learn more: I-601 Waiver (Extreme Hardship) | 212(h) Waiver for Crimes

Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict the outcome of any future legal matter.

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

By

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.

Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict the outcome of any future legal matter.

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

By

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.

Learn more: I-601 Waiver (Extreme Hardship) | 212(h) Waiver for Crimes

Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict the outcome of any future legal matter.

I-601 Waiver for Prostitution Approved for Wife of U.S. Citizen from Thailand

By

I-601 Waiver for Prostitution Approved for Wife for U.S. Citizen from Thailand

Our office received approval of the I-601 Waiver (Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility) for the Thai spouse of a U.S. citizen who was found inadmissible to the United States after being charged with engaging in prostitution due to her previous employment as a masseuse at a massage spa in Thailand.

The U.S. embassy in Bangkok, Thailand is well-known for engaging in rigorous consular interviews – conducting both procedural (checking a computerized database) and investigative checks on its applicants, and vigorously charging applicants with inadmissibility if they suspect certain types of conduct.

The U.S. citizen spouse contacted my office after his Thai spouse was charged with having engaged in prostitution in the past during her immigrant visa interview and deemed inadmissible to the United States pursuant to INA Section 212(a)(2)(D).

Section 212(a)(2)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states:

(D) Prostitution and commercialized vice.-Any alien who-

(i) is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,

(ii) directly or indirectly procures or attempts to procure, or (within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status) procured or attempted to procure or to import, prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or receives or (within such 10- year period) received, in whole or in part, the proceeds of prostitution, or

(iii) is coming to the United States to engage in any other unlawful commercialized vice, whether or not related to prostitution, is inadmissible.

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))

The Attorney General may waive the grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(2)(D)(i)-(ii) of the Act with regard to prostitution if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the alien’s admission would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the U.S., and that the alien has been rehabilitated. INA 212(h)(1)(A).

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 demonstrates that this removal from the United States would result in extreme hardship to his United States citizen or lawful resident parent, spouse, son, or daughter.

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, 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565-66 (BIA 1999), the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) provided a list of factors it deemed relevant in determining whether an alien has established extreme hardship to a qualifying relative.  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.

The Board of Immigration Appeals has also made it clear that although hardships may not be extreme when considered abstractly or individually,  “relevant factors, though not extreme in themselves, must be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists.” Matter of O-J-O, 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.”

The Board of Immigration Appeals has also held that hardship factors such as family separation, economic disadvantage, cultural readjustment, et cetera, differ 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).

As an example, the Board of Immigration Appeals has found family separation, a common result of inadmissibility or removal, can also be the most important single hardship factor in considering hardship in the aggregate. See Salcido-Salcido, 138 F.3d at 1293 (quoting Contreras-Buenfil v. INS, 712 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1983; but see Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. at 247 (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).

We prepared a comprehensive 34-page legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of my clients’ situation met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship”; thoroughly demonstrated “rehabilitation” of the Thai spouse; and showed that the Thai spouse’s admission would “not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the U.S.”  

As with all of our waiver cases, we went above and beyond the work that many law firms would engage in by demonstrating that our client met the legal standard of BOTH INA 212(a)(2)(D)(i)-(ii) and INA 212(h)(1)(B).  This brief was accompanied by supporting exhibits that provided credible proof of every vital and relevant statement made in the legal brief.

The positive factors in this case included:

  • Psychological disorders suffered by the U.S. citizen spouse which substantially impairs his ability to function in everyday life.  The psychological disorders are being being aggravated by the prolonged separation of the couple and the unique circumstances of their individual and collective lives.
  • Significant health issues suffered by the U.S. citizen spouse, including a pulmonary embolism in the past, which now requires regular medical check-ups and the taking of medication for the rest of his life
  • A serious medical condition suffered by the Thai spouse, which requires extremely complicated and high-risk surgery to correct.  Such  surgery is very difficult to obtain from a qualified surgeon in Thailand and complications from the surgery could include nerve damage and infertility.  This situation adds to the mental distress being experienced by the U.S. husband.
  • The U.S. citizen husband is financially responsible for three households: his own, his wife’s, and that of his wife’s parents.  Becoming incapacitated due to his various ailments would lead to financial collapse for the U.S. citizen husband as well as that of his extended family.
  • The U.S. citizen husband has served multiple long-term tours abroad in a civilian position to support the U.S. military in its “War on Terror.”  He has only recently re-united with his family in the U.S. and cannot bear the thought of leaving the U.S. once again.  He also does not speak Thai and would have no means for supporting himself financially in Thailand.
  • Country conditions of Thailand would make it difficult for the U.S. citizen husband to receive the standard of medical care he now receives in the U.S.  The current state of Thai medical care also makes it very difficult for his wife to receive the type of specialized surgery she needs for her serious condition.
  • Evidence of rehabilitation of the Thai spouse includes 14 affidavits of good moral character from members of her family; a Buddhist monk; a local government official; prominent members of the business community; and many others who can attest to her honesty, dedication to family, and character.  It also includes her complete honesty during her consular interview; her history of having studied massage therapy (including evidence of schooling in the field); and the reason for her employment at the massage parlor (which was to financially support her impoverished parents).

Although extreme hardship is only considered when suffered by the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident parent, spouse, son, or daughter of the foreign applicant under INA 212(h)(1)(B), it is my experience that extreme hardship suffered by any close relative of the qualifying relative should be thoroughly discussed.  In this case, the extreme hardships to be suffered by the U.S. citizen’s spouse herself (the waiver applicant), would in turn impact the U.S. citizen and aggravate all of the conditions he presently suffers from.  This was carefully outlined in detail in our memorandum.  This connection can be made when the waiver applicant plays an integral role in the overall well-being of the U.S. citizen and is needed to assume a vital, day-to-day role in his physical, emotional, and psychological care and oversight.

As a result of the I-601 “prostitution waiver” expeditiously prepared and submitted by my office, the I-601 waiver application was approved by the USCIS.  The couple now happily reside together inside the U.S.

Learn more: I-601 Waiver (Extreme Hardship)

Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict the outcome of any future legal matter.

Exercise of Discretion by the USCIS Officer on Immigrant Waivers

By Leave a Comment

Exercise of Discretion by the USCIS Officer on Immigrant Waivers

If an immigrant waiver applicant meets all other statutory and regulatory requirements of a waiver, the USCIS officer must determine whether to approve the waiver as a matter of discretion. 

If the applicant does not meet another statutory requirement of the waiver, USCIS denies the waiver and a discretionary analysis is not necessary.

However, an officer may still include a discretionary analysis if the applicant’s conduct is so egregious that a discretionary denial would be warranted even if the applicant had met the other statutory and regulatory requirements.  Adding a discretionary analysis to a denial is considered useful if an appellate body on review disagrees with the officer’s conclusion that the applicant failed to meet the statutory requisites for the waiver.

According to the USCIS Policy Manual up-to-date as of August 23, 2017, meeting the other statutory and regulatory requirements of an immigrant waiver alone does not entitle the applicant to relief. See Reyes-Cornejo v. Holder, 734 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2013). See Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999). See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996).

The discretionary determination is the final step in the adjudication of a waiver application. The applicant bears the burden of proving that he or she merits a favorable exercise of discretion. See Matter of De Lucia, 11 I&N Dec. 565 (BIA 1966). See Matter of T-S-Y-, 7 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1957).

We consider the exercise of discretion by the adjudicating USCIS officer to be an essential part of any waiver approval that my office has obtained on behalf of our clients for the past 15 years.  Consequently, I always make sure to include every favorable factor from our client’s lives and backgrounds, that in our experience, have proven significant and pivotal in the approval of immigrant (and non-immigrant waivers) for our clients.

The legal basis for the exercise of discretion in immigrant waiver applications commonly filed by my office is highlighted below:

  1. The provisional unlawful presence waiver process allows immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (spouses, children, or parents) who are currently residing in the United States to apply for a provisional waiver while in the United States, provided they meet all eligibility requirements outlined in 8 CFR 212.7(e) and warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.
  2. 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:
    1. has a parent, spouse, son, or daughter who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States; and
    2. the parent, spouse, son, or daughter would suffer “extreme hardship” on account of the alien’s ineligibility to immigrate
    3. 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.
  3.  INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) authorizes the Secretary to waive the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars for individuals seeking admission to the United States as immigrants if they can show that the refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent, and provided that the applicant warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296, 301 (BIA 1996).

The below details some of the discretionary factors relevant to the waiver adjudication as set for by the USCIS Policy Manual:

Non-Exhaustive List of Factors that May Be Relevant in the Discretionary Analysis

CategoryFavorable FactorsUnfavorable Factors
Waiver Eligibility• Meeting certain other statutory requirements of the waiver, including a finding of extreme hardship to a qualifying family member, if applicable. See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996) (relating to a criminal waiver under INA 212(h)(1)(B)). See Matter of Marin, 16 I&N Dec. 581 (BIA 1978) (relating to an INA 212(c) waiver). See Matter of Tijam, 22 I&N Dec. 408 (BIA 1998) (relating to a fraud or misrepresentation finding (INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)) and the discretionary waiver under former INA 241(a)(1)(H) [renumbered as INA 237(a)(1)(H) by IIRIRA]).

• Eligibility for waiver of other inadmissibility grounds.		Not applicable – Not meeting the statutory requirements of the waiver results in a waiver denial. A discretionary analysis is not necessary.
Family & Community Ties• Family ties to the United States and the closeness of the underlying relationships.

• Hardship to the applicant or to non-qualifying lawful permanent residents (LPRs) or U.S. citizen relatives or employers.

• Length of lawful residence in the United States and status held during that residence, particularly where the applicant began residency at a young age.

• Significant health concerns that affect the qualifying relative.

• Difficulties the qualifying relative would be likely to face if the qualifying relative moves abroad with the applicant due to country conditions, inability to adapt, restrictions on residence, or other factors that may be claimed.

• Honorable service in the U.S. armed forces or other evidence of value and service to the community.

• Property or business ties in the United States.		Absence of community ties.
Criminal History & Moral Character (or both)• Respect for law and order, and good moral character, which may be evidenced by affidavits from family, friends, and responsible community representatives.

• Reformation of character and rehabilitation.

• Community service beyond any imposed by the courts.

• Considerable passage of time since deportation or removal.		• Moral depravity or criminal tendencies reflected by an ongoing or continuing criminal record, particularly the nature, scope, seriousness, and recent occurrence of criminal activity.
 
• Repeated or serious violations of immigration laws, which evidence a disregard for U.S. law.

• Lack of reformation of character or rehabilitation.

• Previous instances of fraud or false testimony in dealings with USCIS or any government agency.

• Marriage to a U.S. citizen or LPR for the primary purpose of circumventing immigration laws.

• Nature and underlying circumstances of the inadmissibility ground at issue, and the seriousness of the violation
Public safety or national security concerns
OtherAbsence of significant undesirable or negative factors.Other indicators of an applicant's bad character and undesirability as a permanent resident of this country.

Discretionary Factors

The officer must weigh the social and humanitarian considerations against the adverse factors present in the applicant’s case.  See Matter of De Lucia, 11 I&N Dec. 565 (BIA 1966). See Matter of T-S-Y-, 7 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1957). The approval of a waiver as a matter of discretion depends on whether the favorable factors in the applicant’s case outweigh the unfavorable ones. See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996).

Discretionary Determination

When making a discretionary determination, the officer should review the entire record and give the appropriate weight to each adverse and favorable factor.  Once the officer has weighed each factor, the officer should consider all of the factors cumulatively to determine whether the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable ones. If the officer determines that the positive factors outweigh the negative factors, then the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion.

Example

A lengthy and stable marriage is generally a favorable factor in the discretionary analysis. On the other hand, the weight given to any possible hardship to the spouse that may occur upon separation may be diminished if the parties married after the commencement of removal proceedings with knowledge of an impending removal.  In particular, if a finding of extreme hardship is a statutory eligibility requirement, the finding of extreme hardship permits, but does not require, a favorable exercise of discretion. Once extreme hardship is found, extreme hardship becomes a factor that weighs in favor of granting relief as a matter of discretion.

Example

In general, when reviewing an applicant’s employment history, an officer may consider the type, length, and stability of the employment. See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996). See Ghassan v. INS, 972 F.2d 631 (5th Cir. 1992).

Example

In general, when reviewing an applicant’s history of physical presence in the United States, the officer may favorably consider residence of long duration in this country, as well as residence in the United States while the applicant was of young age. See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996).

Example

When looking at the applicant’s presence in the United States, the officer should evaluate the nature of the presence. For example, a period of residency during which the applicant was imprisoned may diminish the significance of that period of residency. See Diaz-Resendez v. INS, 960 F.2d 493 (5th Cir. 1992).

Cases Involving Violent or Dangerous Crimes

If a foreign national is inadmissible on criminal grounds involving a violent or dangerous crime, an officer may not exercise favorable discretion unless the applicant has established, in addition to the other statutory and regulatory requirements of the waiver that:

  • The case involves extraordinary circumstances; or
  • The denial would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Douglas v. INS, 28 F.3d 241 (2nd Cir. 1994).

Extraordinary circumstances involve considerations such as national security or foreign policy interests.  Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship is substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected as a result of denial of admission, but it does not need to be so severe as to be considered unconscionable. See INA 212(h). See 8 CFR 212.7(d). See Matter of Jean, 23 I&N Dec. 373 (A.G. 2002) (relating to a waiver of inadmissibility granted in connection with INA 209(c), refugee or asylee adjustment of status).  Depending on the gravity of the underlying criminal offense, a showing of extraordinary circumstances may still be insufficient to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. See Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2001).

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 Google & Facebook in our Client Testimonials.

Recent Posts