Crime of Moral Turpitude - Page 2 of 4 - Smart Immigration Lawyer

Requests for Evidence (RFEs) Commonly Issued by USCIS on Waiver Applications

March 30, 2016 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

I am often contacted by applicants who have received a Request for Evidence from the USCIS and are understandably concerned and unsure how to respond.

While some Requests for Evidence are procedural and relatively simple to handle (e.g. a request for a copy of a marriage certificate, birth certificate, etc.), others are more serious and accompanied by a Notice of Intent to Deny as well. This typically occurs because the adjudicating USCIS officer believes that the applicant failed to meet the legal threshold of the waiver being applied for.

Below are Requests for Evidence commonly issued by the USCIS to waiver applicants. Our office has successfully responded to such requests from the USCIS on behalf of our clients for the past 12+ years. Should such a request be issued, I recommend contacting an experienced I-601 and I-212 waiver attorney and get guidance on how to proceed. It is extremely important that such requests be carefully and fully complied with to ensure successful approval of your waiver application.

100 RFE 601- Waiver Requirements for Unlawful Presence – INA 212(a)(9)(B)(v)
You have been found inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because you had previously been unlawfully present in the United States in excess of either 180 days, or for one year or more.

To be eligible for a waiver under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the INA, you must show that:

• You have a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent, or a U.S. citizen fiance( e) who petitioned for your K visa, who would experience extreme hardship if you were denied admission, and
• Your application should be granted as a matter of discretion, with the favorable factors outweighing the unfavorable factors in your case.

101 RFE 601- Waiver Requirements for Criminal & Related Grounds – INA 212(h)
You have been found inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because of your involvement in: [ISO inserts applicable basis for inadmissibility finding]

• A crime involving moral turpitude (other than purely political offense).
• A controlled substance violation according to the laws and regulations of any country related to a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.
• Two or more convictions, other than purely political ones, for which you received sentences of confinement amounting to 5 years or more.
• Prostitution, including having procured others for prostitution or having received the proceeds of prostitution.
• Unlawful commercialized vice whether or not related to prostitution.
• Serious criminal activity but you asserted immunity from prosecution.

This office may approve a waiver of the inadmissibility ground(s) under section 212(h) of the INA, if you can show that either:

You are only inadmissible for participation in prostitution; and

• You have been rehabilitated; and
• Your admission to the United States will not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the United States; and
• Your application should be granted as a matter of discretion, with the favorable factors outweighing the unfavorable factors in your case.

The criminal activities for which you are inadmissible occurred more than 15 years ago; and

• You have been rehabilitated; and
• Your admission to the United States will not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the United States;
• Your application should be granted as a matter of discretion, with the favorable factors outweighing the unfavorable factors in your case.

You have a qualifying relative who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States; and

• Your qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship on account of your ineligibility to immigrate; and
• Your application should be granted as a matter of discretion, with the favorable factors outweighing the unfavorable factors in your case.

You are the fiance( e) of a K visa petitioner; and

• The K visa petitioner would suffer extreme hardship on account of your ineligibility to immigrate; and
• Your application should be granted as a matter of discretion, with the favorable factors outweighing the unfavorable factors in your case.

You are a VA WA self-petitioner

In addition to the above requirements, if an applicant has been convicted of a violent or dangerous crime, USCIS will not waive the inadmissibility as a matter of discretion unless the individual can show an extraordinary circumstance, such as:

One involving national security or policy considerations; or
If the denial of your admission would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

102 RFE 601 – Waiver Requirements for Fraud/Misrepresentation – INA 212(i)
You have been found inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because you sought to procure an immigration benefit by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact.

To be eligible for a waiver under section 212(i) of the INA, you must show that:

• You have a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent, or a U.S. citizen fiance( e) who petitioned for your K visa, who would experience extreme hardship if you were denied admission, or
• You are a VA WA self-petitioner, and that you or your U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or qualified parent or child would experience extreme hardship if you were denied admission; and ‘
• Your application should be granted as a matter of discretion, with the favorable factors outweighing the unfavorable factors in your case.

103 RFE 601 – Waiver Requirements for Communicable Disease – INA 212(g)(1)
You have been found inadmissible to the United States under section 212( a)(1)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because you have a medical condition that will not allow you to enter or remain in the United States. USCIS may waive this inadmissibility ground under section 212(g)(1) of the INA as a matter of discretion after consulting with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

To be eligible for this waiver, you must show that you are one of the following:

The spouse, parent, unmarried son or daughter, or minor unmarried lawfully adopted child of
- A U.S. citizen; or
- An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; or
- An alien who has been issued an immigrant visa

A self petitioner under the Violence Against Women Act (VA WA)

The fiance( e) of a U.S. citizen or the fiance(e)’s child.

104 RFE 601 – Waiver Requirements for Missing Vaccinations – INA 212(g)(2)(C)
You have been found inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(1)(A)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because you have not received the vaccines required for entry into the United States. USCIS may waive this inadmissibility ground under section 212(g)(2)(C) of the INA as a matter of discretion if you can establish that:

You are opposing vaccinations in any form (that is, you are not just opposed to one vaccine but that you oppose the practice of vaccination in general); and
Your objection is based on religious beliefs or your moral convictions; and
Your belief or conviction is sincere (that you actually live according to your belief and conviction, and that you do not just have the belief or conviction because you do not want to be vaccinated).

105VWR – Waiver Requirements for Physical or Mental Disorder- INA 212(g)(3)

You have been found inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because you were determined to have a mental or physical disorder that poses or may pose a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of you or others; or because you have a history of a physical or mental disorder and a history of behavior that poses or may pose a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of you or others because the disorder is likely to reoccur.

After consultation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USCIS may waive this inadmissibility ground under section 212(g)(3) of the INA as a matter of discretion to ensure that you have arranged for suitable health care in the United States so that your condition will no longer pose a threat to you or others.

106 RFE 601- Waiver Requirements for Membership in a Totalitarian Party – INA 212(a)(3)(D)(iv)
You have been found inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(3)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because you had been a member of the Communist Party or another totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof).

To be eligible for a waiver under section 212(a)(3)(D)(iv) of the INA, you must show that:

You are:
- A parent, spouse, son, daughter, brother, or sister of a citizen of the United States, or
- A spouse, son, or daughter of a lawful permanent resident of the United States; and
Your application should be granted to serve humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or because it is otherwise in the public interest; and
You are not a threat to the security of the United States; and
Your application should be granted as a matter of discretion, with the favorable factors outweighing the unfavorable factors in your case.

107 RFE 601 – Waiver Requirements for Smuggling-INA 212(d)(11)
You have been found inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because you had engaged in alien smuggling.

To be eligible for a waiver under section 212(d)(11) of the INA, you must show that:

You are:
- An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who temporarily proceeded abroad voluntarily and not under an order of removal, and are otherwise admissible to the United States as a returning resident under section 211(b) of the INA, or
- Seeking admission or adjustment of status as an immediate relative under section INA 201(b)(2)(A) or as an immigrant under section 203(a) of the INA (first, second, and third family-based preference, but not fourth preference) or as the fiance(e) (or child of the fiance(e))’of a U.S citizen; and
- You have encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided only an individual who at the time of such action was your spouse, parent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the United States in violation of the law; and
- Your application should be granted to serve humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or because it is otherwise in the public interest; and

Your application should be granted as a matter of discretion, with the favorable factors outweighing the unfavorable factors in your case.

108 RFE 601- Waiver Requirements for Subject of Civil Penalty- INA 212(d)(12)
You have been found inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(6)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because you have been the subject of a final order for violation of section 274C of the INA (Document Fraud).

To be eligible for a waiver under section 212(d)(12) of the INA, you must show that:

You are
- An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who temporarily proceeded abroad voluntarily and not under an order of deportation or removal and who is otherwise admissible to the United States as a returning resident under section 211(b) of the INA, or
- Seeking admission or adjustment of status as an immediate relative under section 201(b)(2)(A) of the INA or as an immigrant under section 203(a) of the INA (first, second, and third family-based preference, but not fourth preference) or as the fiance(e) (or child of the fiance(e)) of a U.S. citizen; and
- This is the only civil money penalty order against you under INA 274C; and
- You committed the offense only to assist, aid, or support your spouse or child (and not another individual); and
- Your application should be granted to serve humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or because it is otherwise in the public interest; and

Your application should be granted as a matter of discretion, with the favorable factors outweighing the unfavorable factors in your case.

109 RFE 601 – Applicant Previously Removed – INA 212(a)(9)(A)(iii)
The record indicates that in addition to the inadmissibility ground for which you have filed Form I-601, you are also inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) due to a previous removal or deportation.

An individual who is inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(A) of the INA may file an Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission to the United States After Deportation or Removal (Form I-212).

Your application is missing evidence that you have filed Form I-212 with USCIS. Please submit a USCIS receipt notice for Form I-212 as evidence that you have filed the required application.

110 RFE 601-No Evidence of Visa Refusal or Pending I-485/I-821
An individual who is outside the United States may file Form I-601 if he or she has been found inadmissible by a U.S. Consular Officer after having applied for an immigrant visa or a nonimmigrant K or V visa.

An individual who is inside the United States may file Form I-601 along with an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485) or an Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821 ), or while the Form I-485 or Form I-821 is pending.

Your application is missing evidence that your waiver application is based on either:

An immigrant visa application (or nonimmigrant K or V visa application) filed with the Department of State (DOS), for which you were found ineligible due to an inadmissibility ground; or
A pending Form I-485 or Form I-821.

Please provide the following evidence to support your application:

If you are outside the United States, submit evidence that you have a pending immigrant visa application (or nonimmigrant K or V visa application), such as a copy of a DOS notice identifying your Consular Case Number.
If you are inside the United States and have a pending Form I-485 or Form I-821, submit evidence that you have a pending application, such as a copy of your USCIS receipt notice (Form I-797).

[Read more…]

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.

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 Waiver for Robbery Approved for Vietnamese Client

October 2, 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 Vietnam 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 of Robbery and served 5 months in prison in his native country of Vietnam before being released.

In order to obtain approval of the I-601 waiver, I initiated our firm’s comprehensive process for preparation of compelling and persuasive immigration waiver applications. This is a process that has been crafted and improved over a period of 12 years of preparing I-601, I-212, and 212(d)(3) immigration waivers on behalf of our clients located across the U.S. and around the world.

I began by forwarding our Extreme Hardship Worksheet to my clients, which contains a comprehensive list questions designed to elicit extreme hardships and other persuasive factors from their lives. It also contains a long checklist of supporting documents that help document and prove the hardships and persuasive factors relevant to the case.

I recommended the couple to a clinical psychologist who I have worked closely with for over a decade. The psychological evaluation for immigration waivers is a specialized practice area for clinical psychologists and I provide in-depth guidance should my clients wish to utilize a psychologist who they already have a relationship with (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 27-page legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of my client’s situation met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship.” We also discussed and presented evidence of my client’s rehabilitation, good moral character, and his long history of bettering himself in his professional capacity.

We made sure every single facet of our case was documented including a proven history of mental disorder in the life of the U.S. citizen; her personal family history that makes her particular vulnerable to psychological hardship; as well as her daily support of her lawful permanent resident mother who relies upon her U.S. citizen daughter for every facet of her life in the U.S. Additionally, a table of exhibits referenced a variety of objective evidence in support of a showing of “extreme hardship”.

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

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.

BIA Precedent Decisions on Extreme Hardship for Purposes of the I-601 Waiver and I-601A Provisional Waiver

June 6, 2015 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Provided below is a list of precedent decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals on “extreme hardship.” These decisions are provided as a reference to adjudicating officers of the I-601 and I-601A Provisional Waiver units.

All of the waivers prepared by my office, including the I-601 Waiver and I-601A Provisional Waiver, incorporate relevant case law that pertain to the specific facts of our client’s case.

We constantly monitor administrative, legal, and other changes to the waiver process so that our clients’ waiver applications can be maximized for success.

We begin the waiver preparation process by providing an “extreme hardship” worksheet to our clients. This worksheet helps us identify all of the hardships being suffered by the qualifying relative(s) and the families we represent. This is important because while any single hardship may not be considered “extreme” in and of itself, multiple hardships can “add up” to become “cumulative” and meet the “extreme hardship” standard.

We also provide a detailed checklist of supporting documents to our clients so that every hardship we analyze and discuss can be objectively proven to the satisfaction of the adjudicating waiver officer.

We have a long-standing relationship with a clinical psychologist who is well-versed in preparing psychological evaluations for purposes of the I-601 Waiver and I-601A Provisional Waiver and offers a discounted fee to our clients. Should you decide to get evaluated by your own psychologist, I provide a sample psychological evaluation template so that the evaluation can be drafted in a clear and effective manner by those unfamiliar with the extreme hardship waiver process.

Our completed waiver memos are typically 25-30 pages in length. To this, we add Exhibits to prove every relevant statement made in the waiver. I always forward a draft of the waiver to my clients for review before anything is submitted to the USCIS. We also prepare all of the USCIS forms, organize the Exhibits, and meticulously assemble the waiver package before submitting it to the USCIS on behalf of our clients.

BIA Decision	Summary of Decision on Extreme Hardship
Matter of Sangster, 11 I&N Dec. 309 (BIA 1965)	Economic detriment, in absence of other substantial equities, does not establish extreme hardship. No evidence that suitable employment was unavailable.
Matter of Saekow, 17 I&N Dec. 138 (BIA 1979)	In reference to applicant's suspension of deportation, the Immigration Judge determined that the respondent failed to demonstrate that his deportation would result in extreme hardship to himself or to a specified family member.
Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627 (BIA 1996)	• The term "extreme hardship" refers to hardship that is unusual or beyond that which would normally be expected upon deportation; the common results of deportation and exclusion are not sufficient to prove extreme hardship. • Emotional hardship caused by the severing of family and community ties is a common result of deportation and does not constitute extreme hardship. • To endure the hardship of either separation when it can be avoided by joining the applicant abroad, or of relocation when it can be avoided by remaining in the United States, is a matter of choice and not the result of removal or inadmissibility.
Matter of Piggott, 15 I&N Dec. 129 (BIA 1974)	Immigration Judge finding that the respondents would not be able to provide for their own necessities in Antigua and that their children would suffer as a result of the parents' inability to provide them with proper food, living facilities, and education in that country. Youngest child has rheumatic fever. She is being treated in the US, and equal medical is not available in Antigua. Extreme hardship requirement met.
Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. 245 (Comm. 1984)	The approval of an application for a waiver pursuant to section 212(h) of the INA is dependent in part upon showing of extreme hardship, and thus only in cases of great actual or prospective injury to the qualifying family member will the bar be removed.
Matter of Louie, 10 I&N Dec. 223 (BIA 1963)	Elderly US Citizen father with no other relatives in the US. Respondent takes him to weekly doctors' appointments. In view of the father's advanced age and physical condition it would be extremely harsh, to both the respondent and his father, to deport the respondent from the US. Extreme hardship met.
Matter of Lopez-Monzon, 17 I&N Dec. 280 (Comm 1979)	• Eligibility under section 212(i) of the INA to apply for a waiver of grounds of excludability is limited to aliens who are spouses, parents or children of US citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. Congressional intent was to provide for the unification of families and avoid the hardship of separation. • U.S. Citizen child did not reside in the US. The father (who resided in Guatemala) had custody of the child. No evidence was presented to indicate applicant would obtain custody of the child and no persuasive evidence that the applicant intended to bring the child to reside in the US. Approval of the waiver would not have reunited a family; favorable exercise of discretion was not granted.
Matter of Loo, 15 I&N Dec. 601 (BIA 1976)	Applicant has 25 years residence in the US, a Lawful Permanent Resident daughter, and a small investment in a US business in which he was employed. Extreme hardship met.
Matter of Liao, 11 I&N Dec. 113 (BIA 1965)	Hardship claim of fear of persecution and diminished employment opportunities. Applicant did not establish that his deportation would result in extreme hardship because he refused to return to that country after completing the program of military training for which he entered the US and expressed political views which are not looked upon with favor by the Nationalist Government of China on Formosa.
Matter of lge, 20 I&N Dec. 880 (BIA 1994)	Assuming a United States citizen child would not suffer extreme hardship if he accompanies his parent abroad, any hardship the child might face if left in the United States is the result of parental choice, not of the parent's deportation.
Matter of Leon, 10 I&N Dec. 274 (BIA 1963)	Respondent has US military service with a service connected disability (30% ), is a US high school graduate, employed, and most of his adult years were spent in the US. Earning ability has been impaired by the service connected disability. Extreme hardship met.
Matter of Kojoory, 12 I&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1967)	Extreme hardship not established in relation to applicant's claim of fear of persecution if returned to Iran, limited economic opportunities, lack of opportunities in his own field, and difficulty adjusting to the standard of living.
Matter of Kim, 15 I&N Dec. 88 (BIA 1974)	Suspension of deportation under section 244(a)(1) of the INA based on 7 years physical presence in the US will not be granted on a claim of extreme hardship, where the only facts presented tended to show better economic and educational opportunities for her US citizen children in the US than in Korea.
Matter of H-, 14 I&N Dec. 185 (RC 1972) - sec. 212(h)	Extreme hardship within the meaning of section 212(h) of the INA is established where the applicant's spouse is 81 years old and has already endured a 15-year exile from the US to reside with the applicant in Mexico. The applicant established complete reformation from the activities that rendered her excludable and the stability between her US Citizen spouse was satisfactorily demonstrated; Therefore, a waiver pursuant to 212(h) was granted.
Matter of Gibson, 16 I&N Dec. 58 (BIA 1976)	Even though the alien meets the physical presence and Good Moral Character requirements of the statute, suspension of deportation was ordered denied because economic detriment which may result from deportation does not meet the test of extreme hardship within the contemplation of section 244(a)(1) of the INA. Alien was employed as a custodian and should have no difficulty in finding suitable employment abroad. No relatives in the US.
Matter of Da Silva, 217 I&N Dec. 288 (Comm 1979)	• A discretionary decision must be based on the weight factors present in the case, both adverse and favorable. Questionable factors should not be considered at all, or should be resolved in favor of the applicant. • A waiver application under section 212(i) of the INA will be approved in the interest of family reunification where the requisite relationship exists and the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable factors.
Matter of Chumpitazi, 16 I&N Dec. 629 (BIA 1978)	The loss of job and the financial loss incurred is not "extreme hardship" within the meaning of section 211 of the INA, despite a 11-year stay in the US.
Matter of Cervantes -Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 1996)	Outlines hardship factors to consider in determining whether an alien has established extreme hardship pursuant to section 212(i) of the INA.
Matter of Anderson 16 I&N Dec. 596 (BIA 1978)	While political and economic conditions in an alien's homeland are relevant factors in determining extreme hardship under section 244(a)(1) of the INA, they do not justify a grant of relief unless other factors such as advanced age, severe illness, family. ties, etc. combine with economic detriment to make deportation extremely hard on the alien or the citizen or permanent resident members of his family.
Matter of Alonzo, 17 I&N Dec. 292 (Comm 1979)	• The birth of a US Citizen child, whether or not born during a lawful stay of the parents in the US, is a favorable factor and must accorded considerable weight in the adjudication of an application for the relief of a waiver of grounds of excludability under section 212(i) of the INA. • The section 212(i) waiver should be granted in the exercise of discretion, where favorable factors are present, and there is an absence of countervailing adverse factors. • No statutory or other requirement that extreme hardship be shown in a section 212(i) waiver case. • Applicant sought waiver of excludability for obtaining visas by fraud and misrepresentation. The violation was not held as an adverse factor action because it was the violation for which the alien seeks to be forgiven.
Matter of Uy, 11 I&N Dec. 159 (BIA 1965)	Applicant did not establish his deportation would result in extreme hardship, merely because he would suffer some economic hardship due to limited opportunities in his field of training.

Client Approval: I-601 Waiver for Crime Involving Moral Turpitude Approved in 11 Days

May 7, 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 South Korea 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 of a crime involving insurance fraud and sentenced to one-year probation.

Our office was contacted after the South Korean wife and her U.S. citizen husband prepared and 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 Seoul. Their “self-prepared” I-601 Waiver triggered a comprehensive “Request for Evidence” from the USCIS stating that the couple had failed to adequately establish and prove “extreme hardship.”

This was a particularly difficult case because the U.S. citizen husband already resides in South Korea with his wife, thus requiring us to overcome the assumption that any hardship he is suffering is not extreme since he has already re-located outside of the U.S.

The Request for Evidence from the USCIS specifically stated the following:

This office may approve a waiver of the inadmissibility ground(s) under section 212(h) of the INA, if you can show that either:

• You have a qualifying relative who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States; and
• Your qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship on account of your ineligibility to immigrate; and
• Your application should be granted as a matter of discretion, with the favorable factors outweighing the unfavorable factors in your case.

• One involving national security or policy considerations; or

• If the denial of your admission would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

Your application does not include sufficient evidence to establish that your qualifying relative spouse, your U.S.-born husband, [Name Withheld], would suffer extreme hardship if you are refused admission to the United States. Also, it has not yet been established that it would be an extreme hardship if your husband were to remain in the United States apart from you. And, it has also not yet been explained or established by your husband why it would be an extreme hardship for him to relocate outside of the United States to be with you and your infant daughter in South Korea. “Extreme hardship” is beyond that which normally does occur in any visa denial. Family separation and the loss of support, while undoubtedly difficult, are not, in and of themselves an “extreme hardship.”

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 ).

Beyond simply responding to the Request for Evidence, we prepared an entirely new I-601 “extreme hardship” waiver, including a thorough legal and factual discussion of the extreme hardships relevant to this case. A detailed table of exhibits providing objective proof of every crucial assertion made in our waiver was also included, as it is with all of our waiver applications. Our I-601 waiver was subsequently approved in 11 days to the enormous relief of our clients.

In order to overcome the initial opinion of the USCIS, 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).

We made sure every single facet of their case was documented and that the objections raised by the USCIS in their Request for Evidence was fully addressed to maximize the chances of approval.

Once we identified the most important factors of the case, we prepared a comprehensive legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of my client’s situation met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship.”

We focused on the medical conditions of the U.S. citizen husband and his U.S. citizen mother, and how the U.S. citizen’s husband’s physical and psychological state would worsen in two scenarios: if he remained in the U.S. without his wife; or if he permanently re-located to South Korea to be with his wife, abandoning his ill U.S. citizen mother who has no one else to help care for her.

I also discussed and presented evidence of my client’s rehabilitation, good moral character, and her overall dedication as a wife and mother who is integral to the daily care of her ill U.S. citizen husband and their infant daughter.

The favorable factors in this case included the following:

The U.S. citizen husband suffers from Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Dysthymic Disorder, both major mental disorders recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition
There is a long history of mental illness in the U.S. citizen husband’s family, especially with regard to his mother who has struggled with depression, manic depression, and anxiety most of her life.
The U.S. citizen husband developed two medical conditions, allergic asthma and allergic rhinitis, due to the high levels of air pollution in South Korea.
The U.S. citizen husband’s mother suffers from Stage 3 Lyme’s disease, as well as severe pain caused by fibromyalgia and degenerative disc disease of her spine. She also suffers from hypothyroidism caused by Hashimoto’s disease, a serious autoimmune disease. She has no one else to help take care of her aside from her son.
The U.S. citizen husband’s mother desperately needs to take strong antibiotics to treat the Lyme disease that continues to spread throughout her body, but cannot risk the side effects from the drugs without her son living nearby to aid her should the side effects incapacitate her.
The U.S. citizen husband and his South Korean wife do not earn enough to meet their monthly financial expenses. The U.S. citizen husband is thus unable to afford visits to the U.S. to take care of his mother as her physical and psychological state deteriorates.

As a result of our assistance, this I-601 waiver was approved and the family can now reside together in the U.S.

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.

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.

« Previous Page