601 Waiver News - Page 2 of 5 - Smart Immigration Lawyer

BIA Holds that Adjustment of Status Constitutes an Admission for Purposes of Applying for a Fraud Waiver Under INA Section 237(a)(1)(H)

May 19, 2015 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

I-601 Waiver Legal News

Matter of Agour, 26 I&N Dec. 566 (BIA 2015)

At issue in this case was whether a section 237(a)(1)(H) waiver for certain fraud or misrepresentation at the time of admission is available to aliens who commit fraud in the process of adjusting their status within the United States.

INA section 237(a)(1)(H) states:

(H) Waiver authorized for certain misrepresentations.

The provisions of this paragraph relating to the removal of aliens within the United States on the ground that they were inadmissible at the time of admission as aliens described in section 212(a)(6)(C)(i), whether willful or innocent, may, in the discretion of the Attorney General, be waived for any alien (other than an alien described in paragraph (4)(D)) who–

(i) (I) is the spouse, parent, son or daughter of a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; and

(II) was in possession of an immigrant visa or equivalent document and was otherwise admissible to the United States at the time of such admission except for those grounds of inadmissibility specified under paragraphs (5)(A) and (7)(A) of section 212(a) which were a direct result of that fraud or misrepresentation.

(ii) is a VAWA self-petitioner. A waiver of removal for fraud or misrepresentation granted under this subparagraph shall also operate to waive removal based on the grounds of inadmissibility directly resulting from such fraud or misrepresentation.

INA § 237(a)(1)(H) thus provides a discretionary waiver in removal proceedings for certain misrepresentations and fraud at admission that would otherwise render deportable a lawful permanent resident (LPR) or a self-petitioner under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

The applicant is a native and citizen of Morocco who was admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant visitor visa in 1999. In July 2001, she married a United States citizen who then filed a visa petition on her behalf. In 2002, the applicant was granted conditional permanent resident status pursuant to section 216(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(a) (2000). The conditional basis of respondent’s permanent residence was removed in 2005 by the approval of a jointly filed Form I-751 (Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence).

The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) filed a notice to appear with the Immigration Court on September 5, 2008, charging the respondent with being removable under section 237(a)(1)(A) of the Act, as an alien who is inadmissible based on fraud or misrepresentation under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (2006).

This charge was based on allegations that the respondent procured her adjustment of status by fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact when she married for the sole purpose of obtaining permanent residence in the United States.

The applicant sought to waive fraud that occurred after her initial entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant. The question was whether an adjustment of status can be an admission for purposes of the section 237(a)(1)(H) waiver.

Prior BIA decisions discussing the section 237(a)(1)(H) waiver involved aliens admitted to the United States with immigrant visas who were then charged with being removable for fraud or misrepresentation in that initial entry. See, e.g., Matter of Federiso, 24 I&N Dec. 661 (BIA 2008), overruled on other grounds, Federiso v. Holder, 605 F.3d 695 (9th Cir. 2010); Matter of Fu, 23 I&N Dec. 985 (BIA 2006).

The BIA in this case concluded that an alien’s adjustment of status within the United States constitutes an admission for purposes of the waiver at section 237(a)(1)(H) of the Act.

The Section 237(a)(1)(H) waiver is thus not limited only to those aliens who engage in fraud or misrepresentation at the time of entry into the United States with an immigrant visa. An alien who commits fraud in the course of adjusting status in the United States may waive removal under section 237(a)(1)(A) of the Act as an alien who was inadmissible at the time of adjustment of status based on fraud or misrepresentation.

I-601 Extreme Hardship Waiver Approved by AAO for 10 Year Unlawful Presence Bar

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

I-601 Waiver Legal News

The applicant is a native and citizen of India who was found to be inadmissible to the United States pursuant to section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), for having been unlawfully present in the United States for more than one year and seeking readmission within 10 years of his last departure from the United States.

The applicant entered the United States with a valid C1/D nonimmigrant visa in October 2003 and remained beyond the period of authorized stay. The applicant did not depart the United States until March 2008. The applicant is therefore inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Act for having been unlawfully present in the United States for more than one year.

The applicant sought a waiver of inadmissibility in order to reside in the United States with his U.S. citizen spouse and child. The field office director found that the applicant failed to establish that extreme hardship would be imposed on a qualifying relative and denied the Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (Form 1-601) accordingly.

On appeal, the AAO determined that the applicant had failed to establish that extreme hardship would be imposed on a qualifying relative. The appeal was subsequently dismissed.

On motion, the prior decision of the AAO was withdrawn and the I-601 Extreme Hardship Waiver approved.

Section 212( a )(9) of the Act provides, in pertinent part:

(B) Aliens Unlawfully Present. –

(i) In general. – Any alien (other than an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence) who-

(I) was unlawfully present in the United States for a period of more than 180 days but less than 1 year … and again seeks admission within 3 years of the date of such alien’s departure or removal, or
(II) has been unlawfully present in the United States for one year or more, and who again seeks admission within 10 years of the date of such alien’s departure or removal from the United States, is inadmissible.

(v) Waiver. – The Attorney General [now the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary)] has sole discretion to waive clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse or 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 such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such alien …

A waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) 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 U.S. citizen spouse is the only qualifying relative in this case. Hardship to the applicant or their child, born in 2012, can be considered only insofar as it results in hardship to a qualifying relative. 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, etcetera, 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. See Salcido-Salcido v. I.N.S., 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.

This case is useful to examine in what the applicant initially did WRONG when preparing their I-601 waiver application:

The I-601 waiver and supporting documentation submitted failed to specify the applicant’s spouse’s medical condition, the short and long-term treatment plan, the severity of the situation and what hardships the applicant’s spouse would experience were her husband be unable to assist her with the care of their child.
As for the emotional hardship referenced, the I-601 waiver and supporting documentation failed to establish that said hardships were beyond the normal hardships associated when a spouse relocates abroad due to inadmissibility.
With respect to the applicant’s spouse’s assertions that she would experience financial hardship were her husband to relocate abroad, no documentation was provided establishing the applicant’s spouse’s expenses and assets and liabilities to establish that the applicant’s relocation would cause his wife financial hardship.
The waiver and supporting documentation failed to establish that the applicant’s spouse would be unable to properly care for herself and her child while continuing her work as a physician.
Alternatively, it was not established that the applicant would be unable to obtain gainful employment abroad that would permit him to assist his wife financially should the need arise.
Finally, the applicant’s spouse had a support network in the United States, including her parents and sibling, and it was not established that the applicant’s spouse’s relatives would be unable to provide needed assistance to the applicant’s spouse.

On motion, counsel effectively addressed the issues raised by the AAO:

In a declaration the applicant’s spouse details that she is going through turmoil and anguish knowing that she and her child may be separated from the applicant for a ten-year period.
She explains that as a physician, her career will be in jeopardy if she shows any evidence of mental or physical anguish.
She contends that at times she has been so distraught at the idea of her husband relocating abroad that she has had to fight back tears while at work.
The applicant’s spouse further asserts that she has no support to help take care of her daughter as her parents are old and suffer from many ailments and the rest of her family does not live close by.
Moreover, the applicant’s spouse maintains that she and the applicant work part-time to ensure that one of them is with their daughter as much as possible and a change in that arrangement would cause her and her child hardship.
In support, counsel re-submitted an evaluation from a doctor that states that the applicant’s spouse’s anxiety and depression are a direct result of the circumstances surrounding her husband’s case.
The doctor concludes that were the applicant to re-locate abroad while his spouse remains in the United States, the applicant’s spouse will slip into a protracted depression.
The applicant’s spouse’s pastors have also provided letters outlining the hardships the applicant’s spouse and child would face were the applicant to re-locate abroad, including emotional turmoil and day to day hardships.
Moreover, numerous letters have been provided from the applicant’s friends outlining the hardships the applicant’s family will face without the applicant’s daily presence.
Finally, counsel submitted financial documentation establishing the applicant’s and his spouse’s income and expenses and noting that due to business losses, the applicant’s spouse may not be able to cover all the family expenses without her husband’s financial support.

All this thus established on motion that the applicant’s spouse would experience extreme hardship were she to remain in the United States while her husband relocates abroad as a result of his inadmissibility.

However, the grant or denial of the waiver does not turn only on the issue of the meaning of “extreme hardship.” It also hinges on the discretion of the Secretary and pursuant to such terms, conditions and procedures as she may by regulations prescribe. In discretionary matters, the alien bears the burden of proving eligibility in terms of equities in the United States which are not outweighed by adverse factors. See Matter of T-S-Y-, 7 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1957).

In evaluating whether relief is warranted in the exercise of discretion, the factors adverse to the alien 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 and seriousness, and the presence of other evidence indicative of the 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 alien began 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 or service in 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). See Matter of Mendez-Moralez,”-21 i&N bee. 296, 301 (BIA 1996).

The AAO must then balance the adverse factors evidencing an alien’s undesirability as a permanent resident with the social and humane considerations presented on the alien’s behalf to determine whether the grant of relief in the exercise of discretion appears to be in the best interests of the country.” Id. at 300. (Citations omitted).

In this case, the favorable factors are:

the extreme hardship the applicant’s U.S. citizen spouse and child would face if the applicant were to relocate to India, regardless of whether they accompanied the applicant or stayed in the United States;
community ties;
support letters from the church and friends;
the payment of taxes;
the apparent lack of a criminal record;
financial contributions to the church;
and the applipant’ s obtainment of an F -1 Visa and lawful entry after having accrued unlawful presence in the United States.

The unfavorable factors in this matter are the applicant’s periods of unlawful presence in the United States.

Although the violations committed by the applicant were considered serious in nature, the AAO found that the applicant has established that the favorable factors in her application outweigh the unfavorable factors. Therefore, a favorable exercise of the Secretary’s discretion was considered warranted and the I-601 extreme hardship waiver approved.

Client Approval: I-601 Extreme Hardship Waiver Approved for Mexican Wife

February 18, 2015 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office received approval of the I-601 “Extreme Hardship” Waiver for a Mexican applicant married to a U.S. citizen husband. The U.S. citizen husband contacted my office after his Mexican wife attended her consular interview at Ciudad Juarez and was deemed inadmissible to the U.S. based on being subject to the “10 year unlawful presence bar” pursuant to INA Section 212(a)(9)(B).

Our I-601 Waiver application package included a complete set of USCIS forms requesting consideration of the I-601 Waiver; a 21 page waiver statement detailing relevant case law favorable to my client’s situation and presenting the extreme hardships that applied to this case; and a comprehensive collection of exhibits to prove the extreme hardships being presented.

Section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act provides, in pertinent part:

(i) In General – Any alien (other than an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence) who –

(II) has been unlawfully present in the United States for one year or more, and who again seeks admission within 10 years of the date of alien’s departure or removal from the United States, is inadmissible.

(v) Waiver. – The Attorney General [now the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary)] has sole discretion to waive clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse or 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 such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such alien.

”Extreme hardship,” for purposes of the I-601 Waiver, 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 drafted a comprehensive 21 page waiver memorandum outlining the relevant case law favorable to my client’s situation. It also discussed in detail the medical, financial, emotional, and psychological hardships the U.S. citizen husband (and their children) are presently suffering from, and proved how they would worsen in the event of continued separation of this family. I also highlighted a variety compelling factors in the lives of the applicant and her family that I believed warranted an exercise of favorable discretion on the part of the USCIS.

Some of the relevant factors in this case included the following:

The U.S. citizen daughter suffers from Febrile Seizures, Epilepsy, Unconjugated Hyperbilirubinemia, and has a history of life-threatening incidents that required surgery and treatment. She also suffers from depressive disorder, aggravated by the absence of her mother from her life due to her mother’s inadmissibility to the U.S.
The other U.S. citizen daughter is hyperactive and has been injured numerous times due to her uncontrolled behavior, including plastic surgery needed for her most recent injury to her skull.
The U.S. citizen husband suffers from crippling Anxiety Disorder, overwhelmed by the burden of caring for two sick children while under imminent threat of termination by his employer due to his absences from work to take care of his children and visit his wife in Mexico.
The loss of his employment would terminate the medical insurance he receives through his Union-job, which helps pay for the medical expenses incurred by himself and his family
The loss of his employment would cause financial collapse given his existing financial debt including mortgage on the family home
The U.S. citizen’s extensive family ties to the U.S. including brothers and sisters
The country conditions of the region in Mexico where the wife resides (and where the family would have to re-locate to in the event she is not admitted), including specific instances of violent crimes that have recently occurred in her immediate vicinity

As a result of the I-601 Waiver prepared and submitted by my office, the waiver application was approved and this family can soon be re-united inside the United States.

I-601A Provisional Waiver Program Expanded Pursuant to Obama Executive Order

November 24, 2014 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer 2 Comments

Under current law certain undocumented individuals in this country who are the spouses and children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, and who are statutorily eligible for immigrant visas, must leave the country and be interviewed at U.S. consulates abroad to obtain those immigrant visas. If these qualifying individuals have been in the United States unlawfully for more than six months and later depart, they are, by virtue of their departure, barred by law from returning for 3 or 10 years.

Current law allows some of these individuals (i.e., a spouse, son, or daughter of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) to seek a waiver of these 3- and 10-year bars if they can demonstrate that absence from the United States as a result of the bar imposes an “extreme hardship” to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent spouse or parent. But, prior to 2013, the individual could not apply for the waiver until he or she had left the country for a consular interview.

In January 2013, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a regulation establishing a process that allows a subset of statutorily eligible individuals to apply to USCIS for a waiver of the 3- and 10-year bars before departing abroad for consular interviews. This “provisional” waiver provided eligible individuals with some level of certainty that they would be able to return after a successful consular interview and would not be subject to lengthy overseas waits while the waiver application was adjudicated.

However, the 2013 regulation extended the provisional waiver process only to the spouses and children of U.S. citizens. In 2013 DHS did not initially extend the provisional waiver to other statutorily eligible individuals-i.e., the spouses and children of lawful permanent residents and the adult children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents – to assess the effectiveness and operational impact of the provisional waiver process. To date, approximately 60,000 individuals have applied for the provisional waiver, a number that is less than was expected.

USCIS is now ordered to amend its 2013 regulation to expand access to the provisional waiver program to all statutorily eligible classes of relatives for whom an immigrant visa is immediately available.

This means that the I-601A Provisional Waiver program is now available to spouses and children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents as well as to the adult children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

It should however be kept in mind that spouses and children of lawful permanent residents and the adult children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents may still face long wait times before the I-601A waiver can be submitted based on the retrogression dates published on the Department of State’s Visa Bulletin.

USCIS has also been ordered to provide additional guidance on the definition of “extreme hardship.” As noted above, to be granted a provisional waiver, applicants must demonstrate that their absence from the United States would cause “extreme hardship” to a spouse or parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The statute does not define the term, and federal courts have not specifically defined it through case law. Additional guidance about the meaning of the phrase “extreme hardship” has been deemed necessary to provide broader use of this legally permitted waiver program.

USCIS must thus clarify the factors that are considered by adjudicators in determining whether the “extreme hardship” standard has been met. Factors that should be considered for further explanation include, but are not limited to: family ties to the United States and the country of removal, conditions in the country of removal, the age of the U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent, the length of residence in the United States, relevant medical and mental health conditions, financial hardships, and educational hardships.

USCIS has been further directed to consider criteria by which a presumption of extreme hardship may be determined to exist.

Client Approval: I-601 Waiver Approved for Crime Involving Moral Turpitude by Immigration Waiver Lawyer Michael Cho

October 8, 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 a citizen of the United Kingdom 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). Our client was previously convicted on five counts of shoplifting and was sentenced to 12 months, conditionally discharged.

Our office was contacted after the British wife and her U.S. citizen husband filed for the I-601 Waiver on their own after the applicant was deemed inadmissible at her consular interview which took place at the U.S. Embassy in London. Their “self-prepared” I-601 Waiver was denied by the USCIS.

In order to overcome their I-601 Waiver denial, 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 I identified the most important factors of the case, I 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.” I also discussed and presented evidence of my client’s rehabilitation, good moral character, and her overall dedication as a wife and mother who was integral to the daily care of her ill U.S. citizen husband, his elderly lawful permanent resident parents, and their infant children who suffered from serious medical conditions.

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

The reasons cited by the USCIS in its denial of the couple’s first and “self-prepared” I-601 Waiver Application are informative:

The USCIS stated that the applicant’s assertion that her U.S. citizen husband could not operate his thriving U.S. business from the United Kingdom was insufficient. It stated that while the applicant’s husband indicated that it would be: “more difficult and perhaps less profitable to continue to operate his business from outside the U.S., however it was not shown that it would be unprofitable, or that any loss of income would create an extreme hardship. No evidence was presented that he could not employ person(s) in the U.S. as necessary.”

The USCIS found that: “No evidence was presented as to the extent of his financial support for you and his parents.” The U.S. citizen husband lived in the United States with both of his elderly parents who are lawful permanent residents of the U.S. and paid for the household of his wife and two infant children in the United Kingdom.

The USCIS also stated that statements from the applicant’s U.S. citizen husband that he is suffering ‘severe depression’ that is likely to affect his general health, together with a letter from a psychologist indicating that the U.S. citizen husband received supportive help in coping with his psychological depression and anxiety, were insufficient to prove extreme hardship.

Specifically, the USCIS stated that the psychological letter contained no clinical diagnosis or prognosis for stabilization or improvement and did not indicate the severity of his psychological problems.

The USCIS concluded that that while denial of the applicant’s admission would have an adverse impact upon her family, this adverse effect is no greater than one would expect from a prolonged absence of a loved one due to inadmissibility. It stated that the evidence presented by the couple did not demonstrate the U.S. citizen husband’s distress is beyond the emotional/psychological hardship which separation from loved ones typically presents in visa refusals, and did not rise to the level of extreme hardship either singularly or in the aggregate.

Extreme hardship is not a term of”fixed and inflexible meaning”; establishing extreme hardship is “dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565 (BIA 1999). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez lists the factors it considers relevant in determining whether an applicant has established extreme hardship. The factors include :

• Presence of a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen spouse or parent in this country;
• Qualifying relative’s family ties outside the United States;
• 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;
• 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. ld. at 565-566.

The BIA indicated that these factors relate to the applicant’s “qualifying relative.” ld. at 565-566. In Matter of O-J-0-, 2 1 I&N Dec. 38 1, 383 (BIA 1996), the BIA stated that the factors to consider in determining whether extreme hardship exists “provide a framework for analysis,” and that the “[r]elevant factors, though not extreme in themselves, must be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists.” It further stated that “the trier of fact must consider the entire range of factors concerning hardship in their totality” and then “determine whether the combination of hardships takes the case beyond those hardships ordinarily associated with deportation.” (citing Matter of lge, 20 I&N Dec. 880, S82 (BIA 1994 ).

To support its reasoning in the original denial of the couple’s I-601 waiver application, the USCIS cited and presented the the following case law:

In other cases of extreme hardship, it has been found that the mere loss of employment, the inability to maintain one’s present standard of living or to pursue a chosen profession, or separation of a family member or cultural readjustment do not constitute extreme hardship. Matter of Pilch, 2 1 I&N Dec. 627 (BIA 1996); Marquez-Medina v INS, 765 F.2d 673 (7th Cir. 1985); Bueno-Carillo v. Landon, 682 F2d 143 (7th Cir. 1982); Chokloikaew v INS, 60 I F.2d 2 16 (5th Cir. 1979), Banks v INS, 594 F.2d 760 (9th Cir. 1979; Matter of Kojoory, 12 I&N Dec. 2 15 (BIA 1967).

To overcome the previous findings of the USCIS, I prepared a 20 page legal memorandum discussing the extreme hardships and other persuasive factors of the case. I 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 “extreme hardship” including:

Proof of U.S. Lawful Permanent Residence of the U.S. Citizen Husband’s parents and the potential loss of this residence if they were forced to re-locate abroad with their son
Medical Records of the U.S. Citizen husband’s father confirming his High Blood Pressure, Hypertension, Hernia Surgery, and upcoming Prostate Surgery
Psychological Evaluation from an experienced clinical psychologist confirming the U.S. Citizen husband’s Dysthymic and Generalized Anxiety Disorders and vital need to remain in the U.S. for regular treatment
Medical Records of the couple’s infant children who were pre-maturely born after only 23 weeks of gestation and suffer from life-threatening conditions including Chronic Lung Disease (bronchopulmonary dysplasia), Patent ductus arteriosus, feeding difficulties, Bacterial sepsis, Hypotension, Respiratory Distress, Pneumothorax, and Isolated Intestinal Perforation.
Proof of financial contributions from the U.S. Citizen Husband for his British Wife and family
Proof that the U.S. Citizen Husband’s business could not be operated from abroad and would suffer closure should he be forced to re-locate to the United Kingdom in order to be with his family
Affidavits of Good Moral Character and Rehabilitation for the applicant by her friends and family

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 Waiver and I-212 Waiver Approved for 10 Year Unlawful Presence Bar and 10 Year Deportation Bar

September 24, 2014 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office received approval of both the I-601 Waiver (Application for Waiver of Excludability) and I-212 Waiver (Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission) for the Brazilian spouse of a U.S. citizen wife. The couple have one daughter together who is two years old. They also raise a 6 year old son together who is from a prior relationship of the U.S. citizen wife.

The Brazilian husband entered the U.S. on a B-1/B-2 visitor visa and overstayed for over approximately 1.5 years in the country. He was then detained and removed from the United States. He subsequently re-located from his home country of Brazil to the United Kingdom for greater economic opportunities that would allow him to support his family back in the United States.

The U.S. citizen wife contacted me after her husband attended his immigrant visa interview at the U.S. embassy and was denied for the immigrant visa after being deemed inadmissible to the United States. He was subject to the 10 year “unlawful presence bar” pursuant to INA INA Section 212(a)(9)(B) as well as the 10 year “deportation bar” pursuant to INA Section 212(a)(9)(A)(i) and (ii).

Section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act provides, in pertinent part:

(i) In General – Any alien (other than an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence) who –

(v) Waiver. – The Attorney General [now the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary)] has sole discretion to waive clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse or 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 such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such alien.

Section 212(a)(9)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Immigration and National Act, as added by IIRAIRA Section 301, provides that foreign nationals who have been ordered removed may not be readmitted to the United States until they have stayed outside the U.S. for a specified period of time:

5 years for individuals removed through summary exclusion or through removal proceedings initiated upon the person’s arrival in the U.S.;
10 years for those otherwise ordered removed after a deportation hearing or whodeparted the United States while an order of removal was outstanding; and
20 years for a second or subsequent removal.

The I-212 waiver allows foreign nationals who wish to return to the U.S. prior to meeting the required amount of time outside the U.S. to file an application for permission to reapply pursuant to INA Section 212(a)(A)((iii).

The USCIS exercises broad discretion when adjudicating I-212 waiver requests for permission to reapply. The following may be considered positive factors in granting permission for early re-entry:

Basis for the deportation

Recency of deportation

Foreign national’s length of residence in the U.S., and status held during that presence

Family responsibilities and ties to the U.S.

Foreign natonal’s evidence of good moral character

Foreign national’s respect for law and order

Evidence of reformation and rehabilitation

Hardship involving the applicant and others

Need for the applicant’s services in the U.S.

Whether the applicant has an approved immigrant or non-immigrant visa petition

Eligibility for a waiver of other inadmissibility grounds

Absence of significant undesirable or negative factors

Negative factors may include:

Evidence of moral depravity, including criminal tendencies reflected by an ongoing unlawful activity or continuing police record

Repeated violations of immigration laws, willful disregard of other laws

Likelihood of becoming a public charge

Poor physical or mental condition (however, a need for treatment in the United States for such a condition would be a favorable factor)

Absence of close family ties or hardships

Spurious marriage to a U.S. citizen for purpose of gaining an immigration benefit

Unauthorized employment in the United States

Lack of skill for which labor certification could be issued

Serious violation of immigration laws, which evidence a callous attitude without hint of reformation of character

Existence of other grounds of inadmissibility into the U.S.

”Extreme hardship,” for purposes of the I-601 Waiver, 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 drafted a comprehensive 25+ page waiver memorandum outlining the relevant case law favorable to my client’s situation. It also discussed in detail the extreme hardships the U.S. citizen wife (and their children) are presently suffering from, and proved how they would worsen in the event of continued separation of this family. I also highlighted a variety persuasive factors that I believed warranted an exercise of favorable discretion on the part of the USCIS.

Some of the favorable factors in this case included the following:

The U.S. citizen wife suffers from a number of medical conditions including Gallstone Pancreatitis and emotional depression. She almost died from post-operative pneumonia after a recent medical procedure.
The U.S. citizen wife’s U.S. citizen son suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (“OCD”), Pervasive Developmental Disorder, and Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotions and Conduct. He sees a psychologist regularly and takes medication for his conditions.
The U.S. citizen wife resides with her elderly parents, both of whom suffer from serious medical conditions. The U.S. citizen wife’s father suffers from Pulmonary Thromboembolism, Hypertension, and Emphysema and has been informed by his physician that he may not survive his next heart attack. The U.S. citizen wife takes care of her parents as best she can on a daily basis and helps manage their medical treatment.
The U.S. citizen wife has only a high school education, does not speak Portuguese, and has minimal employment prospects in Brazil and the United Kingdom.
The Brazilian husband worked diligently while in the United States to support his wife and two children. He has continued to do so while residing abroad, sending money to his family every month while enduring a painful separation of almost 4 years from his beloved wife and two children

As a result of the I-601 Waiver and I-212 Waiver prepared and submitted by my office, both waiver applications were approved and the Brazilian husband now resides in the United States as a lawful permanent resident of this country.

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))

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.

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.

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 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.

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-

(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.

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 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.

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

BIA Holds that Adjustment of Status Constitutes an Admission for Purposes of Applying for a Fraud Waiver Under INA Section 237(a)(1)(H)

I-601 Extreme Hardship Waiver Approved by AAO for 10 Year Unlawful Presence Bar

Client Approval: I-601 Extreme Hardship Waiver Approved for Mexican Wife

I-601A Provisional Waiver Program Expanded Pursuant to Obama Executive Order

Client Approval: I-601 Waiver Approved for Crime Involving Moral Turpitude by Immigration Waiver Lawyer Michael Cho

Client Approval: I-601 Waiver and I-212 Waiver Approved for 10 Year Unlawful Presence Bar and 10 Year Deportation Bar

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

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

Get Answers Now

Check Out Our Client Reviews

Recent Posts