212(h) Waiver - Page 2 of 3 - Smart Immigration Lawyer

Client Approval: I-601 Waiver for Prostitution Approved for K-1 Fiancée at U.S. Embassy Bangkok

March 17, 2016 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office received approval of the I-601 Waiver (Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility) for the Thai fiancée of a U.S. citizen that we expeditiously prepared and submitted on behalf of the couple.

The Thai fiancée was found inadmissible to the United States after being charged with engaging in prostitution during her K-1 fiancée visa consular interview (despite not having any such criminal conviction on her formal record). 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 fiancée contacted my office after his Thai fiancée was charged with having engaged in prostitution in the past 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).

In support of my client’s I-601 waiver, I prepared a comprehensive legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of my clients’ situation met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship”; “rehabilitation” of the K-1 fiancée; and that the K-1 fianceé admission would “not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the U.S.”

In other words, 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 fiancé which includes Dysthymic Disorder and Bipolar Depression, both of which were being aggravated by the prolonged separation of the couple.
Various physical ailments and medical conditions suffered by the U.S. citizen fiancé.
Various physical ailments and medical conditions suffered by the U.S. citizen fiancé’s father, who relies upon his son to oversee his medical care. The U.S. citizen fiancé is also expected to take over day-to-day care of his father in the future when his father’s wife is no longer able to carry out these duties due to her own age and health status.
Various physical ailments and a serious psychological disorder suffered by the U.S. citizen fiancé’s brother. The U.S. citizen fiancé coordinates the medical care of his brother and visits him at the facility where he is hospitalized several times a week.
The role of the U.S. citizen fiancé in caring for indigent and low-income individuals through his professional work. We presented and discussed the irreparable negative impact on the local community should the U.S. citizen fiancé be forced to depart from the U.S. in order to live with his beloved fiancée abroad in Thailand.
Country conditions of Thailand including the inability of the U.S. citizen fiancé to obtain proper psychological care for himself in Thailand; his inability to speak the local language; and his inability to practice his specialized profession there due to language-based licensing requirements.
Evidence of rehabilitation of the Thai fiancée including a letter of good moral character from the local chief of police; her reformed life as a business owner who continues to supports her family financially; her complete honesty in admitting to her past misconduct during her K-1 visa consular interview; and the reason for her past misconduct (which was to financially support her impoverished mother and siblings).

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 father and U.S. brother in the event of my client’s departure from the U.S., would in turn impact the U.S. citizen himself 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 qualifying relative plays an integral role in taking care of the close relative, either in daily care, financial support, and/or medical oversight.

As a result of the I-601 “prostitution waiver expeditiously prepared and submitted by my office within 2 weeks of my client having first contacted our office, the I-601 waiver application was approved by the USCIS. The couple now happily reside together inside the U.S.

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

February 16, 2016 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(B) in the case of,an immigrant who is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if it established to the satisfaction of the [Secretary] that the alien’s denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to the United States citizen or lawfully resident spouse, parent, son, or daughter of such alien.

(2) the [Secretary], in [her] discretion, and pursuant to such terms, conditions and procedures as [she] may by regulations prescribe, has consented to the alien’s applying or reapplying for a visa, for admission to the United States, or adjustment of status.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Client Approval: I-601 Waiver Approved for Marijuana Possession Conviction

November 10, 2015 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our law firm and our clients were pleased to receive two separate “extreme hardship” immigrant waiver approvals in one day.

The first waiver approval was for a I-601 Application for Waiver of Inadmissibility for the K-1 fiance of a U.S. citizen (from Japan) who was deemed inadmissible for life due to a conviction for simple possession of marijuana.

The second waiver approval received the same day was for a I-601A Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver for the Peruvian husband of a U.S. citizen spouse.

I-601 “Extreme Hardship” Waiver Approved for K-1 Fiance of U.S. Citizen Deemed Inadmissible for Conviction of Possession of Marijuana

INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) deems inadmissible those convicted of, or who admit to having committed, or who admit to committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a a violation or conspiracy to violate any law or regulation of a State, the United States or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).

An immigrant waiver is available pursuant to INA 212(h)(1)(A) if

the alien’s admission to the United States would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the United States;
alien has been rehabilitated;
the inadmissible act occurred more than 15 years before the visa application; and
the violation relates to a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.

Alternatively, an immigrant waiver is available pursuant to INA 212(h)(1)(B) if:

the alien is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter to a U.S. citizen or U.S. lawful permanent resident;
in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, refusing the waiver would result in extreme hardship to the qualifying U.S. citizen or U.S. lawful permanent resident relative; and
the violation relates to a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.

Furthermore, even if the applicant demonstrates that he merits a grant of discretion under the waiver, he must also establish that he meets the terms, conditions, and procedures of the regulations promulgated by the Attorney General. INA 212(h)(2).

The applicant is in our case has long-standing ties to the United States, where he met his U.S. citizen fiancee with whom he has been in a relationship for over 10 years.

Our client attended boarding school in the United States, graduated from a U.S. university, and has no other criminal conviction aside from a single conviction for possession of marijuana for which he completed all court-imposed requirements.

We first prepared, filed, and obtained approval of the I-129F Petition for Alien Fiancee. As with all of our K-1 fiancee visa cases, we provided our clients with a detailed letter going over the process from start to finish. We also provided a checklist of supporting documents to gather and provide to ensure approval of their K-1 fiancee visa petition.

We meticulously prepared every USCIS form needed, assembled the initial USCIS petition, and expeditiously submitted the petition to the USCIS on behalf of our clients.

As a result of our efforts up-front, we were able to obtain approval of the I-129F Petition for Alien Fiancee from the USCIS within 2 months of submission.

In the meantime, we prepared the I-601 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility pursuant to INA 212(h)(1)(B) by demonstrating extreme hardship to our client’s U.S. citizen fiancee and highlighting every favorable discretionary factor from our clients’ lives.

A US citizen fiancé(e) may also be a qualifying relative for purposes of the waiver according to 9 FAM 41.81 N9.3(a) and 8 CFR 212.7(a)(1)(i).

Legal Analysis of Extreme Hardship

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 (quotingContreras-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).

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

Our Client’s Extreme Hardship and Discretionary Factors

The factors discussed and documented (with ample objective evidence) in the I-601 “Extreme Hardship” waiver prepared for our client includes:

the U.S. citizen fiancee suffering from Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Dysthymic Disorder, including being prescribed anti-anxiety medication to alleviate her symptoms;
the U.S. citizen fiancee suffering from medical issues that elevates her risk of cancer (requiring regular check-ups) and makes it medically advisable to start a family sooner rather than later;
the U.S. citizen fiancee’s foreseeable need to help financially support her U.S. citizen father, who will soon no longer able to work due to back pain
the U.S. citizen fiancee’s special duties as an educator of young children, and the impairment of these duties due to the psychological symptoms of her disorders (made worse by her continued separation from her fiance and related stress factors)
documented psychological and financial hardships suffered by the U.S. citizen fiancee (and her U.S. citizen mother) during her prior periods of residence in her fiance’s home country
the country conditions of her fiance’s home country including persistent gender inequality and the prohibitive cost of living in the capital city (and its resultant impact upon the financial health of the U.S. citizen fiancee and her ability to visit her immediate family in the U.S.)
the good moral character, rehabilitation, and other favorable discretionary factors in the life of the waiver applicant

As a result of our effort, our client was approved for the I-601 waiver and will be allowed to enter the U.S. to marry his beloved fiancee and begin a life together as a married couple.

USCIS Draft Guidance on Adjudication of Extreme Hardship Waivers

October 14, 2015 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Selected USCIS draft guidance concerning the adjudication of applications for those discretionary waivers of inadmissibility that require showings of “extreme hardship” to certain U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) family members of the applicant follows below.

Admissibility is generally a requirement for admission to the United States, adjustment of status, and other immigration benefits. Several provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), however, authorize discretionary waivers of particular inadmissibility grounds for those who demonstrate “extreme hardship” to specified U.S. citizen or LPR family members (referred to here as “qualifying relatives”).

Each of these provisions conditions a waiver on both a finding of extreme hardship to a qualifying relative and the more general favorable exercise of discretion. All of these waiver applications are adjudicated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (and in some cases by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review).

The various statutory provisions specify different sets of qualifying relatives and permit waivers of different inadmissibility grounds. They include:

INA 212(a)(9)(B)(v) – This provision can waive the three-year and ten-year inadmissibility bars for unlawful presence. Eligible qualifying relatives include the applicant’s U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent.
INA 212(h)(1)(B) – This provision can waive inadmissibility for crimes involving moral turpitude, multiple criminal convictions, prostitution and commercialized vice, and certain serious criminal offenses for which the foreign national received immunity from prosecution. It can also waive inadmissibility for controlled substance convictions, but only when the conviction was for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana. Eligible qualifying relatives include the applicant’s U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, parent, son, or daughter.
INA 212(i)(1) – This provision can waive inadmissibility for certain types of immigration fraud. Eligible qualifying relatives include the applicant’s U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent.

Common Consequences of Inadmissibility

Common consequences of an applicant’s refusal of admission, in and of themselves, do not warrant a finding of extreme hardship. The BIA has held that these common consequences include, but are not limited to, the following:

Family separation;
Economic detriment;
Difficulties of readjusting to life in the new country;
The quality and availability of educational opportunities abroad;
Inferior quality of medical services and facilities; and
Ability to pursue a chosen employment abroad.

Even though these common consequences alone would be an insufficient basis for a finding of extreme hardship, they are still factors that must be considered when aggregating the total hardships to the qualifying relative.

When combined with other factors that might also have been insufficient when taken alone, even these common consequences might cause the sum of the hardships to reach the “extreme hardship” standard.

For example, if a qualifying relative is gravely ill, elderly, or incapable of caring for himself or herself, the combination of that hardship and the common consequences of a refusal of the applicant’s admission might well cause extreme emotional or financial hardship for the qualifying relative.

Examples of Factors that Might Support Finding of Extreme Hardship

Factors	Considerations
Family Ties and Impact	Presence of qualifying relative’s ties to family members living in the United States, including age, status, and length of residence of any children
	Responsibility for the care of any family members in the United States, in particular children and elderly or disabled adults
	Presence or absence of qualifying relative’s ties outside of the United States, including to family members living abroad and how close the qualifying relative is to these family members
	Nature of relationship between the applicant and the qualifying relative, including any facts about the particular relationship that would either aggravate or lessen the hardship resulting from separation
	Qualifying relative’s age
	Length of qualifying relative’s residence in the United States
	Length of qualifying relative’s prior residence in the country of relocation, if any
	Military service of qualifying relative, where the stresses and other demands of such service aggravate the hardship ordinarily resulting from family separation
	Impact on the cognitive, social, or emotional well-being of a qualifying relative who is left to replace the applicant as caregiver for someone else, or impact on the qualifying relative (for example, child or parent) for whom such care is required
Social and Cultural Impact	Loss of access to the U.S. courts and the criminal justice system, including the loss of opportunity to request criminal investigations or prosecutions, initiate family law proceedings, or obtain court orders regarding protection, child support, maintenance, child custody, or visitation
	Fear of persecution
	Existence of laws and social practices in home country that punish the qualifying relative because he or she has been in the United States or is perceived to have Western values
	Access or lack of access to social institutions and structures (official and unofficial) for support, guidance, or protection
	Social ostracism or stigma based on characteristics such as gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, race, national origin, ethnicity, citizenship, age, political opinion, or disability
	Qualifying relative’s community ties in the United States and in the country of relocation
	Extent to which the qualifying relative has assimilated to U.S. culture, including language, skills, and acculturation
	Difficulty and expense of travel/communication to maintain ties between qualifying relative and applicant, if the qualifying relative does not relocate
	Qualifying relative’s present inability to communicate in the language of the country of relocation, taking into account the time and difficulty that learning that language would entail
	Availability and quality of educational opportunities for qualifying relative (and children, if any) in country of relocation
Economic Impact	Financial impact of applicant’s departure on the qualifying relative(s), including the applicant’s or the qualifying relative’s ability to obtain employment in the country to which the applicant would be returned and how that would impact the qualifying relative
	Qualifying relative’s need to be educated in a foreign language or culture
	Economic and financial loss due to the sale of a home or business
	Economic and financial loss due to termination of a professional practice
	Decline in the standard of living, including high levels of unemployment, underemployment, and lack of economic opportunity in country of nationality
	Ability to recoup losses
	Cost of extraordinary needs such as special education or training for children
	Cost of care for family members, including children and elderly, sick, or disabled parents
Health Conditions & Care	Significant health conditions and impact on the qualifying relative, particularly when tied to unavailability of suitable medical care in the country or countries to which the applicant might relocate
	Health conditions of the applicant’s qualifying relative and the availability and quality of any required medical treatment in the country to which the applicant would be returned, including length and cost of treatment
	Psychological impact on the qualifying relative due to either separation from the applicant or departure from the United States, including separation from other family members living in the United States
	Psychological impact on the qualifying relative due to the suffering of the applicant, taking into account the nature of the relationship and any other relevant factors
Country Conditions	Conditions in the country or countries to which the applicant would relocate, including civil unrest or generalized levels of violence, ability of country to address crime/high rates of murder/other violent crime, environmental catastrophes like flooding or earthquakes, and other socio-economic or political conditions that jeopardize safe repatriation or lead to reasonable fear of physical harm
	Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation
	Danger Pay for U.S. citizens stationed in the country of nationality
	Withdrawal of Peace Corps from the country of nationality for security reasons
	DOS Travel Warnings issued for the country of nationality

Special Circumstances that Strongly Suggest Extreme Hardship

The preceding list identifies factors that bear generally on whether a refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to one or more qualifying relatives.

USCIS has also determined that the circumstances below would often weigh heavily in favor of finding extreme hardship. These sorts of special circumstances are beyond the qualifying relative’s control and ordinarily cause suffering or harm greater than the common consequences of separation or relocation.

An applicant who is relying on one or more of these special circumstances must submit sufficient evidence that such circumstances exist. As always, even when these or other special circumstances are present, the ultimate determination of extreme hardship is based on the totality of the circumstances in the individual case.

It must be emphasized that the special circumstances listed below are singled out only because they are especially likely to result in findings of extreme hardship. Many other hardships will also be extreme, even if they are very different from, or less severe than, those listed below. Further, even the factors discussed are not exclusive; they are merely examples of factors that can support findings of extreme hardship, depending on the totality of the evidence in the particular case. Other factors not not discussed could support a finding of extreme hardship, under a totality of the circumstances.

Eligibility for an immigration benefit ordinarily must exist at the time of filing and at the time of adjudication. Given the underlying purpose of considering special circumstances, a special circumstance does not need to exist at the time of filing the waiver request. As long as the qualifying relative was related to the applicant at the time of filing, a special circumstance arising after the filing of the waiver request also would often weigh heavily in favor of finding extreme hardship.

1. Qualifying Relative Previously Granted Asylum or Refugee Status

If a qualifying relative was previously granted asylum or refugee status in the United States from the country of relocation and the qualifying relative’s status has not been revoked, those factors would often weigh heavily in favor of a finding that relocation would result in extreme hardship.

As the family member of a foreign national who has been granted asylum or refugee status, the applicant might also face dangers similar to those that gave rise to the qualifying relative’s grant of asylum or refugee status. In such a case, the qualifying relative could suffer psychological trauma in knowing the potential for harm if the applicant returns to the country of nationality, particularly if the qualifying relative fears returning to that country even to visit the applicant, and could thereby suffer extreme hardship.

2. Qualifying Relative or Related Family Member’s Disability

If the Social Security Administration or other qualified U.S. Government agency made a formal disability determination for the qualifying relative, the qualifying relative’s spouse, or a member of the qualifying relative’s household for whom the qualifying relative is legally responsible, that factor would often weigh heavily in favor of a finding that relocation would result in extreme hardship.

Absent a formal disability determination, an applicant may provide other evidence that a qualifying relative or related family member suffers from a medical or physical condition that makes either travel to, or residence in, the relocation country detrimental to the qualifying relative or family member’s health or safety.

In cases where the qualifying relative or related family member requires the applicant’s assistance for care because of the medical or physical condition, that factor would often weigh heavily in favor of a finding that separation would result in extreme hardship to the qualifying relative.

3. Qualifying Relative’s Active Duty Military Service

If the qualifying relative (who might be a spouse or other qualifying relative) is on active duty with any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, relocation will generally be unrealistic, because the qualifying relative ordinarily will not be at liberty to relocate.

If the applicant and the qualifying relative have been living together – for example, on a military base that accommodates families or in a private facility off base – the removal of the applicant can therefore create separation. Under those circumstances, the qualifying relative might well suffer psychological and emotional harm associated with the separation.

The resulting impairment of his or her ability to serve the U.S. military could exacerbate that hardship. In addition, even if the qualifying relative’s military service already separates him or her from the applicant, the applicant’s removal overseas might magnify the stress of military service to a level that would constitute extreme hardship.

4. DOS Warnings Against Travel to or Residence in Certain Countries

DOS issues travel warnings to notify travelers of the risks of traveling to a foreign country. Reasons for issuing a travel warning include, but are not limited to, unstable government, civil war, ongoing intense crime or violence, or frequent terrorist attacks. Travel warnings remain in place until the situation changes. In some of these warnings, DOS advises of travel risks to a specific region or specific regions of a country.

In other travel warnings, DOS does more than merely notify travelers of the risks; it affirmatively recommends against travel or residence and makes its recommendation countrywide.

These travel warnings might contain language in which:

DOS urges avoiding all travel to the country because of safety and security concerns;
DOS warns against all but essential travel to the country;
DOS advises deferring all non-essential travel to the country; and/or
DOS advises U.S. citizens currently living in the country to depart.

Generally, the fact that a qualifying relative who is likely to relocate would face significantly increased danger in the country of relocation would often weigh heavily in favor of a finding of extreme hardship. If the country of relocation is currently subject to a DOS country-wide travel exists and, therefore, that relocation would result in extreme hardship.

If the travel warning covers only part of the country of relocation, but the officer finds that that part is one to which the qualifying relative plans to return despite the increased danger (for example, because of family relationships or employment opportunities), then that fact would similarly tend to weigh heavily in favor of finding that relocation would result in extreme hardship.

Alternatively, if it is more likely than not that the qualifying relative would relocate in a part of the country that is not subject to the travel warning (either because of the danger in the area covered by the travel warning or for any other reason), the officer should evaluate whether relocation in the chosen area would itself result in extreme hardship to that qualifying relative.

Conversely, if the applicant were to return to this particular country but the qualifying relative would be more likely than not to remain in the United States, the separation might well result in psychological trauma for the qualifying relative.

5. Substantial Displacement of Care of Applicant’s Children

USCIS recognizes the importance of family unity and the ability of parents and other caregivers to provide for the well-being of children. Moreover, depending on the particular facts, either the need to assume someone else’s care-giving duties or the continuation of one’s existing care-giving duties under new and difficult circumstances can be sufficiently burdensome to rise to the level of extreme hardship for the caregiver. The children do not need to be U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents for that to be the case.

At least two different scenarios can occur.

In one scenario, the primary or sole breadwinner is refused admission, and the caregiver, who is a qualifying relative, remains behind to continue the caregiving. The fact that the breadwinner’s refusal of admission would cause economic loss to the caregiver is not by itself sufficient for extreme hardship. Economic loss is a common consequence of a refusal of admission.

But, depending on the facts of the particular case, economic loss can create other burdens that in turn are severe enough to amount to extreme hardship. For example, if the qualifying relative must now take on the combined burdens of breadwinner and ensuring continuing care of the children, and that dual responsibility would threaten the qualifying relative’s ability to meet his or her own basic subsistence needs or those of the person(s) for whom the care is being provided, that dual burden would tend to weigh heavily in favor of finding extreme hardship. In addition, depending on the particular circumstances, the qualifying relative may suffer significant emotional and psychological impacts from being the sole caregiver of the child(ren) that exceed the common consequences of being left as a sole parent.

If the refusal of admission would result in a substantial shift of care-giving responsibility from the applicant to a qualifying relative, and that shift would disrupt family, social, and cultural ties, or hinder the child(ren)’s psychological, cognitive, or emotional development, or otherwise frustrate or complicate the qualifying relative’s efforts to provide a healthy, stable, and caring environment for the child(ren), the additional psychological and economic stress for the qualifying relative could exceed the levels of hardship that ordinarily result from family separation – depending, again, on the totality of the evidence presented. If that is found to be the case, such a consequence would tend to weigh heavily in favor of a finding of extreme hardship to the qualifying relative, provided the applicant shows:

The existence of a bona fide parental or other care-giving relationship between the applicant and the child(ren);
The existence of a bona fide relationship between the qualifying relative and the child(ren); and
The qualifying relative would become the primary caretaker for the child(ren) or otherwise would take on significant parental or other care-giving responsibilities.

To prove a bona fide relationship to the child(ren), the applicant and qualifying relative should have emotional and/or financial ties or a genuine concern and interest for the child(ren)’s support, instruction, and general welfare. Evidence that can establish such a relationship includes:

Income tax returns;
Medical or insurance records;
School records;
Correspondence between the parties; or
Affidavits of friends, neighbors, school officials, or other associates knowledgeable about the relationship.

To prove the qualifying relative either would become the primary caretaker for the child(ren) or relative needs to show an intent to assume those responsibilities. Evidence of such an intent could include:

Legal custody or guardianship of the child, such as a court order;
Other legal obligation to take over parental responsibilities;
Affidavit signed by qualifying relative to take over parental or other care-giving responsibilities; or
Affidavits of friends, neighbors, school officials, or other associates knowledgeable about the qualifying relative’s relationship with the children or intentions to assume parental or other care-giving responsibilities.would otherwise take on significant parental or other care-giving responsibilities, the qualifying relative’s relationship with the children or intentions to assume parental or other care-giving responsibilities.

Hypothetical Case Examples

Scenario #1: AB has lived continuously in the United States since entering without inspection 7 years ago. He and his U.S. citizen wife have been married for 4 years. If AB is refused admission, it is reasonably foreseeable that his wife would relocate with him. His wife is a sales clerk. A similar job in the country of relocation would pay far less. In addition, she does not speak the language of the relocation country, lacks experience in the country, and lacks the ties that would facilitate social and cultural integration and opportunities for employment. AB himself is an unskilled laborer who similarly would command a much lower salary in the country of relocation. The couple has no children.

Analysis: These facts alone generally would not favor a finding of extreme hardship. The hardships to the qualifying relative, even when aggregated, include only common consequences of relocation – economic loss and the social and cultural difficulties arising mainly from her inability to speak the language.

Scenario #2: The facts are the same as in Scenario # 1 except that now the couple has a 9-year old U.S. citizen daughter who would relocate with them if AB is refused admission. The child was born in the United States and has lived here her entire life. AB’s wife and daughter both have close relationships with AB’s wife’s U.S. citizen sister and brother-in-law, who are the child’s aunt and uncle, and this couple’s U.S. citizen children, who are the child’s cousins, as well as other members of the family. They all live in close proximity with one another, have close emotional bonds, and visit each other frequently, and the aunt and uncle help care for the child. Neither AB’s wife’s family nor (for this particular waiver) the child are qualifying relatives, but AB’s wife, who is a qualifying relative, would suffer significant emotional hardship from seeing the suffering of both her young child and her sister’s family (the child’s aunt, uncle and cousins), all separated from one another, as well as separated from other family members, and from losing the emotional bonds she and her child have with her sister’s family and other family members, and financial benefit she receives from the care that her sister and brother-in-law provide. In addition, the child (like her mother) does not speak the language of the relocation country.

Analysis: Depending on the totality of the evidence, these additional facts would generally support a finding of extreme hardship. The aggregate hardships to the U.S. citizen wife now include not only the economic losses, diminution of professional opportunities, and social, cultural, and linguistic difficulties – all common consequences – but also the extra emotional hardship she would experience as a result of seeing the suffering of her young child and also her sister and the sister’s family, and other members of the family because of the additional separation, the child’s inability to speak the language, as well as loss of emotional bonds between all these family members and financial benefit from their contribution to the care of the child. That is the case even though neither the child nor the aunt, uncle and cousins, or family members are qualifying relatives for the particular waiver, because their suffering will in turn cause significant emotional suffering for the U.S. citizen wife, who is a qualifying relative. Note that even though the common consequences are not alone sufficient to constitute extreme hardship, they must be added to the other hardships to determine whether the totality adds up to extreme hardship.

Scenario #3: Again the facts are the same as in Scenario # 1, except this time AB himself has LPR parents who live in the United States and who would suffer significant emotional hardship as a result of separation from their son and their daughter-in-law, with whom they have close family relationships.

Analysis: Depending on the totality of the evidence, the addition of these facts would generally favor a finding of extreme hardship. There are now 3 qualifying relatives – AB’s wife and both his parents. Although the aggregated hardships to AB’s wife alone (under Scenario # 1) include only the common consequences of a refusal of admission, further aggregating them with the emotional hardships suffered by the two LPR parents would generally tip the balance in favor of a finding of extreme hardship, depending, again, on the totality of the evidence.

Scenario #4: CD has lived continuously in the United States since entering without inspection 4 years ago. She has been married to her U.S. citizen husband for 2 years. It is reasonably foreseeable that he would choose to remain in the United States in the event she is refused admission. He has a moderate income, and she works as a housecleaner for low wages. Upon separating they would suffer substantial economic detriment; in addition to the loss of her income, he is committed to sending her remittances once she leaves, in whatever amounts he can afford. They have no children, and there are no extended family members in the United States.

Analysis: These facts alone generally would not favor a finding of extreme hardship. The qualifying relative, and the hardships to him, even when aggregated, include only common consequences – separation from his spouse and economic loss.

Scenario #5: EF and GH, a married couple from Taiwan, entered the United States on student visas 19 and 17 years ago, respectively. They overstayed their visas and have lived here ever since. They have five U.S. citizen children, all of whom were born in the United States and have lived here their entire lives. In the event that the parents are removed to Taiwan, it is reasonably foreseeable that the children would relocate with them. The children range in age from 6 to 15 and are fully integrated into the American lifestyle. None of the children are fluent in Chinese, and they would have to attend Chinese language public schools if they relocate because the family would not be able to afford private school. The 15-year-old child in particular would experience significant disruption to her education in light of her current age and her inability to speak or understand Chinese. The family of seven would be able to afford only a one-bedroom apartment upon relocation.

Analysis: This is the fact situation of Matter of Kao, 23 I. & N. Dec. 45 (BIA en banc 2001). The Board in that case, sitting en banc, held that these facts constitute extreme hardship for the 15-year-old daughter, who was one of the qualifying relatives. The Board therefore did not need to decide whether the other qualifying individuals would also suffer extreme hardship upon relocation. A key factor in that decision was the daughter’s age. In addition to the common consequences (integration into the American lifestyle, current inability to speak the language of the country of relocation, lesser educational opportunities, and economic loss), the Board found that because of her age and the time it would take to become fluent in the language of the country of relocation, the daughter’s education would be significantly disrupted and she would experience extreme hardship as a result.

Scenario #6: KL has lived continuously in the United States since entering without inspection six years ago. She married a U.S. citizen four years ago and seeks a waiver of the 10-year inadmissibility bar for unlawful presence based on extreme hardship to her husband. If she is refused, she would be removed to a country for which the U.S. State Department has issued travel warnings for specific regions, including the region where her family lives. It is reasonably foreseeable that her husband would relocate with her, and that because of the danger they would relocate in one of the areas for which no travel warnings have been issued. Unemployment throughout the country is extremely high, however, and without the family connections that they would forfeit by living outside the region of their family’s residence, the job prospects for both spouses are dim and their basic subsistence needs would be threatened.

Analysis: The fact that parts of the country of relocation are dangerous does not, by itself, constitute extreme hardship. Similarly, economic loss alone is not extreme hardship. But economic detriment that is severe enough to threaten a person’s basic subsistence can rise to the level of extreme hardship. Therefore, if the dangers in parts of the relocation country would induce the qualifying relative to relocate in other parts of the country where economic subsistence would be threatened (or if relocation in such parts is reasonably foreseeable for any other reason), the resulting economic distress would generally favor a finding of extreme hardship, depending on the totality of the evidence. Conversely, if it were reasonably foreseeable that because of the economic realities the qualifying relative, despite the danger, would relocate in a region for which travel warnings have been issued, then that danger would weigh heavily in favor of finding extreme hardship.

Client Approval: I-601 Extraordinary Circumstances Waiver Approved by Showing Exceptional or Extremely Unusual Hardship

August 23, 2015 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for a citizen of Japan who was subject to a life-time bar from being admitted to the United States for conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT) under INA Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

Our client was previously convicted of two separate charges of assault, one of which was considered by the USCIS to be a “violent and dangerous criminal act.”

The court in Matter of Jean, 23 I. & N. Dec. 373 (AG 2002) heightened the standard that requires the government to deny relief to people convicted of violent or dangerous crimes, except in extraordinary circumstances, such as those involving national security or foreign policy considerations, or where the denial of relief would result in exceptional or extremely unusual hardship.

The standard announced in Matter of Jean was subsequently adopted into regulations at 8 CFR § 1212.7(d) (governing 212(h) waivers).

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 he 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.

The Attorney General may also 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 his removal from the United States would result in extreme hardship to his United States citizen or lawful resident parent, spouse, son, or daughter.

Our office was contacted after the Japanese waiver applicant and her U.S. citizen husband (a member of the U.S. Armed Forces) filed for the I-601 Waiver on their own after the applicant was deemed inadmissible at her consular interview. Their “self-prepared” I-601 Waiver triggered a Request for Additional Evidence which stated that the couple had failed to show extraordinary circumstances that would warrant approval of their I-601 waiver application.

In order to meet this heightened standard of review (which is even more difficult to achieve than for a standard “extreme hardship” waiver) , we initiated our firm’s comprehensive process for preparation of powerful and effective immigration waiver applications.

We reviewed all of the material the couple previously submitted to the USCIS, forwarded our Extreme Hardship Worksheet to the couple (which contains questions designed to elicit extreme hardships and other persuasive factors), and provided a comprehensive checklist of supporting documents to gather and return to our office .

We also recommended the couple to a 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 20 page legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of our client’s situation not only met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship,” but rose to the level of “exceptional or extremely unusual hardship”. We also argued that national security and policy considerations warranted approval of the I-601 waiver based upon the important duties and meritorious service undertaken by the U.S. citizen spouse who is a member of the U.S. Armed Forces.

We presented our own case law that was relevant to the facts and circumstances of our case and supported approval of our waiver application. Additionally, a table of exhibits referenced a variety of objective evidence in support of a showing of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

We discussed and elaborated upon evidence of the waiver applicant’s rehabilitation, good moral character, and her overall dedication as a wife and mother who is integral to the emotional support of her U.S. citizen husband (who suffers from Anxiety Disorder, triggered by heavy combat and fatalities of unit members experienced during his multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan).

We also highlighted the’ waiver applicant’s role in helping her U.S. citizen husband care for his elderly U.S. citizen parents, who suffer from serious life-threatening medical conditions (including Type II Diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, among other conditions), and who rely upon their son for financial support and overall care.

We made sure every single facet of our client’s case was documented and that the objections raised by the USCIS in their previous denial was fully addressed to maximize the chances of approval.

As a result of our efforts, the couple’s I-601 “Extreme Hardship” Waiver Application was approved and this family now lawfully resides together in the United States.

Client Approval: I-601 Prostitution Waiver, I-601 Fraud Waiver, and I-212 Removal Waiver Approved for South Korean Client

September 20, 2014 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer 2 Comments

Our office received approval of both the I-212 Waiver (Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission) and I-601 Waiver (Application for Waiver of Excludability) for the South Korean spouse of a U.S. citizen. The South Korean wife was found inadmissible to the United States based on having admitted to previously engaging in prostitution in the United States; having committed fraud/misrepresentation in order to gain an immigration benefit; and having been expeditiously removed from the U.S. while attempting to enter the U.S. with a validly approved K-1 visa.

The U.S. citizen husband contacted my office after his fiancee’s removal from the United States due to our firm’s in-depth experience in securing I-601 “Prostitution Waivers” and I-601 “Fraud/Misrepresentation Waivers” over the past 12 years. This was a particularly challenging case given the numerous grounds of inadmissibility that the South Korean wife was subject to: prostitution, fraud/misrepresentation, and a 5 year bar due to expedited removal from the U.S.

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))

In Matter of Tin, 14 I & N 371 (1973), and Matter of Lee, 17 I & N Dec. 275 (1978), the Board of Immigration Appeals established the standards to be considered in adjudicating applications for permission to reapply (applied for using the I-212 Waiver): 1. the basis for deportation; 2. recency of deportation; 3. 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. hardship involving the applicant and others; 8. the need for the applicant’s services in the United States; and 9. whether the applicant has an approved immigrant or non-immigrant visa petition.

In support of my client’s I-601 and I-212 waiver applications, I prepared a comprehensive legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of my clients’ situation met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship”; “rehabilitation” of the client; and that my client’s admission would “not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the U.S.”

In other words, 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 husband including Dysthymic Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder, both of which were being aggravated by the prolonged separation of the couple
Various physical illnesses and conditions suffered by the U.S. citizen husband, including Chronic Hepatitis B that required constant medical monitoring and treatment in the United States
Various physical illnesses and conditions suffered by the U.S. citizen husband’s parents, both of whom relied upon their son to support them financially and manage their medical care
Significant amounts of U.S. educational and mortgage debt of the U.S. citizen, all of which would be in danger of default should the U.S. citizen husband be forced to re-locate to South Korea (a country where he neither spoke the language nor would be qualified to practice his specialized profession)
Evidence of rehabilitation of the South Korean wife including educational courses undertaken and numerous affidavits written in her support

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 parents in the event of their son’s departure from the U.S., would in turn impact the U.S. citizen himself 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 qualifying relative plays an integral role in taking care of the close relative, either in daily care, financial support, and/or medical oversight.

As a result of the I-601 “prostitution waiver,” I-601 “fraud/misrepresentation waiver,” and I-212 “removal/deportation waiver” prepared and submitted by my office, the I-601 and I-212 waiver applications were all approved. The couple now happily reside together inside the U.S. The South Korean wife holds U.S. permanent residence and will qualify to apply for U.S. citizenship within three years.

Client Approval: I-601 Waiver Approved for Crime Involving Moral Turpitude

June 17, 2014 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

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

He was previously convicted of gross careless impairment of interests of creditors and withholding employees’ social security contributions in Austria. Both convictions were expunged from the record after he complied with the terms of his probation. His U.S. citizen wife filed the I-130 Petition for Immediate Relative on his behalf. He was denied at the U.S. embassy during his consular interview since foreign convictions that are expunged are still deemed relevant for U.S. immigration purposes.

He hired an attorney without specialized experience in waivers to prepare and submit a waiver application on his behalf. That waiver was denied. He subsequently contacted our office and engaged my services to re-submit the I-601 waiver on his behalf pursuant to INA 212(h)(1)(B) based on the extreme hardship that his US citizen wife (and son) would continue to suffer if he is not admitted to the U.S.

An I-601 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility under INA 212(h)1()(B) requires a showing that the applicant’s U.S. citizen spouse, parent. son or daughter would suffer “extreme hardship” if the applicant is refused admission into the United States.

”Extreme hardship” has a special meaning under U.S. immigration law. The factors considered relevant in determining extreme hardship include:

Health of the qualifying relative: ongoing or specialized treatment requirements for a physical or mental condition; availability and quality of such treatment in the foreign national’s country, anticipated duration of the treatment; whether a condition is chronic or acute, or long or short-term.

Financial considerations: future employability; loss due to sale of home or business or termination of a professional practice; decline in standard of living; ability to recoup short-term losses; cost of extraordinary needs, such as special education or training for children; cost of caring for family members (i.e., elderly and infirm parents).

Education: loss of opportunity for higher education; lower quality or limited scope of education options; disruption of current program; requirement to be educated in a foreign language or culture with ensuing loss of time in grade; availability of special requirements, such as training programs or internships in specific fields.

Personal considerations: close relatives in the United States and/or the foreign national’s country; separation from spouse/children; ages of involved parties; length of residence and community ties in the United States.

Special considerations: cultural, language, religious, and ethnic obstacles; valid fears of persecution, physical harm, or injury; social ostracism or stigma; access to social institutions or structures.

Any other information that explains how your personal circumstances may qualify as imposing extreme hardship on a qualifying U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relative.

Spouses must demonstrate that their relationship will suffer more than the normal hardship or financial inconvenience caused by family separation.

I prepared a comprehensive I-601 waiver application including a 15 page legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of my clients’ situation met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship.” I also discussed and presented evidence of the applicant’s rehabilitation, good moral character, and overall dedication as a husband and father who was integral to the care and well-being of his ill U.S. citizen wife and son.

This case was particularly difficult because the U.S. citizen wife was born and raised in Austria. She had spent her entire life in Austria and only recently re-located to the United States. We had to overcome the presumption that a U.S. citizen who was raised and spent her entire life in Austria, who speaks the local language as a native, was educated in the country, and has never resided in the United States, has adjusted to life in Austria and is not suffering extreme hardship.

Given the long history of the U.S. citizen wife in Austria, I made sure that the Austrian physicians’ letters conformed to the specific needs and requirements of the I-601 waiver. I also worked with a U.S. marriage & family therapist to corroborate the Major Depression the U.S. citizen wife suffers from and the consequences of immigration-caused separation upon her mental health and overall well-being. Additionally, I carefully analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the case and put together a table of exhibits that supported a showing of “extreme hardship.” The supporting documents included:

Psychological evaluation, physicians’ letters, and medical records of the U.S. citizen wife confirming her Major Depression, difficulty sleeping, debilitating migraines, high blood pressure, Chronic Hepatitis C, and hypertension
Proof of the U.S. citizen wife’s dire financial situation including her complete economic dependence on her Austrian husband
Evidence of the Austrian husband’s continued employment in the United States with his current employer should he be admitted to the U.S., and the importance of this employment to meet the medical and vital needs of his U.S. citizen wife and son
Evidence of the U.S. citizen’s wife’s reliance on the support and assistance of her parents, and how her parent’s re-location to the United States necessitated her re-location to the U.S.
Affidavits demonstrating my client’s good moral character including a sworn affidavit from a Lieutenant-Colonel of the Austrian police department

As a result of our efforts, our client was approved for the I-601 Waiver and consequently, this family of mother, father, and son will be able to live together as a family in the United States.

I-601 Waiver Approved by AAO for Fraud/Misrepresentation and Crime Involving Moral Turpitude

April 20, 2014 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer 2 Comments

I-601 Waiver Legal News

The applicant is a native and citizen of Pakistan 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 a crime involving moral turpitude. This was due to a conviction on October 6, 1995 for P.L. 215.15.01, or Intimidating a Victim or Witness in the Third Degree.

The applicant was also found to be inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(6)(C)(i), for having attempted to procure an immigration benefit in the United States by fraud or willful misrepresentation. The applicant submitted false information on an Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal (Form 1-589).

The applicant sought a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Act and section 212(i) 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-

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

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

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.

Section 212(i) of the Act provides that:

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. The applicant’s spouse is the only qualifying relative in this case. 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).

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).

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).

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 that contributed to approval of this I-601 “extreme hardship” waiver include the following:

The applicant’s wife has medical conditions including depression, recurring pain that exacerbates her depression, and anxiety. She is monitored biweekly to ensure that her condition does not become life-threatening.
Should the wife’s condition become unbearable she will undergo a hysterectomy.
The wife’s medical conditions are complicated by her trying to become pregnant. She is undergoing fertility treatment, and the applicant’s presence is necessary for continued support.
Due to health problems the applicant’s wife misses work at times. She depends on the applicant’s income in addition to her own.
If the wife remains in the United States without the applicant she would be unable to support herself entirely and would be unable to visit the applicant in Pakistan.
Affidavit from the wife states that the applicant is her strength and support and that time spent with him is the happiest of her life. She states that she is trying to have a child, but suffers severe menstrual pain and it is difficult to conceive. She states that she was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, anxiety, and hypertension due mainly to the applicant’s immigration problem and her inability to get pregnant, and that she has regularly received psychiatric care for more than two years, taking limited medication because of trying to get pregnant.
A letter from the spouse’s medical doctor states that the wife has a history of adenomyosis, hypothyroidism and depression, with pain and vaginal bleeding that impact her everyday life by causing her to avoid activities. The letter further states that there is a possibility of a hysterectomy, calling it a risky and invasive surgery, and that she is undergoing fertility treatment.
A 2011 psychological evaluation notes the wife’s medical history and states that being unable to conceive causes anxiety. The evaluation states that the spouse is diagnosed with major depressive disorder and it further states that the applicant’s wife could benefit with a closely monitored trial of antidepressants, but that she needs family support.
A March 2013 letter from a medical doctor states he has treated the applicant’s wife since 1998 and that she is taking prescribed psychotropic medication.
The family members of the applicant’s wife all live in the United States. The family is extremely close and has strong bonds, and she visits with her family often.
The applicant’s wife came to the United States more than 20 years ago and is assimilated in manner and ideology. She became a U.S. citizen in 2004
Country conditions information indicates that Pakistan is dangerous, becoming increasingly radical and violent, and that expatriates are subjected to increasing scrutiny. Anti-Americanism is on the rise.
The applicant’s wife has an established job as an accountant in the United States, but a Muslim female in Pakistan is rarely given the opportunity for a career. It is unlikely the applicant’s spouse would find a job in Pakistan to support herself because of discrimination against women in the work force.
The applicant’s wife states that she fears women are a prime target by Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and that she does not follow traditional rules for women.
Medical treatment is unavailable or unaffordable in Pakistan, so the financial impact of living there would be life-threatening for the applicant’s spouse. The applicant’s wife asserts that mental health issues are largely ignored in Pakistan.

Based on the above, the AAO found that the applicant’s qualifying spouse will suffer extreme hardship as a consequence of being separated from the applicant, in particular due to her medical and emotional condition. The AAO also found that the cumulative effect of the qualifying spouse’s family ties and length of residence in the United States, her health and safety concerns, and loss of employment if she were to relocate, rises to the level of extreme if she returned to Pakistan to reside 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, upon a balancing of the positives and negatives of the case, favorable discretion was exercised and the I-601 waiver was approved.

« Previous Page