Crime of Moral Turpitude - Page 3 of 4 - Smart Immigration Lawyer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 20, 2014 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer 2 Comments

I-601 Waiver Legal News

The applicant is a native and citizen of Pakistan who was found inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. This was due to a conviction on October 6, 1995 for P.L. 215.15.01, or Intimidating a Victim or Witness in the Third Degree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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).

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).

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.

Client Approval: I-601 Waiver under 212(h) Approved for Client With Multiple CIMT and Controlled Substance Conviction

March 9, 2014 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office recently received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for a client who was subject to a lifetime ban from being admitted to the United States pursuant to INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Our client has multiple criminal convictions in her background including a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude which occurred in 1998 and a controlled substance conviction (possession of a cannabis bong) which occurred in 1997. Our client is married to a U.S. lawful permanent resident husband with an approved I-130 immediate relative petition filed on her behalf.

She contacted me after filing the I-601 waiver on her own and receiving a notice from the USCIS stating that the waiver package she filed did not contain sufficient evidence that a favorable exercise of discretion was warranted in her case.

Legal Requirements of the § 212(h) Waiver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I Obtained Approval of the I-601 Waiver for My Client Who Had Multiple Convictions for Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude and a Controlled Substance Conviction

In support of my client’s I-601 waiver application, I prepared a comprehensive 21-page legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of her situation met the legal standards for both INA 212(h)(1)(A) and INA 212(h)(1)(B) including citations of existing case law favorable to my client’s case.

I thoroughly outlined the the medical, financial, and psychological hardships of the case and presented persuasive evidence of my client’s rehabilitation and good moral character. Not only did I show that my client was rehabilitated and her admission not contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the U.S., I also demonstrated that her overall dedication as a wife and mother was integral to the daily care of her ill U.S. citizen husband (who suffers from coronary heart disease and psychological disorders) and their three children (one of whom suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). I also showed that the welfare of her husband and children depends on them remaining inside the United States together with their wife and mother.

An extensive table of exhibits also listed a variety of evidence in support of a showing of “extreme hardship” and rehabilitation.

As a result of our efforts, our client was approved for the 601 waiver within 4 weeks of submission and subsequently, received her lawful permanent residence to join her family in the United States.

USCIS Issues Field Guidance on I-601A Provisional Waiver Applicants with Criminal Arrests or Convictions

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

On March 4, 2013, the USCIS began a new provisional unlawful presence waiver program for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens whose only ground of inadmissibility is unlawful presence in the United States under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) and (II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The provisional unlawful presence waiver process allows immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are currently residing in the United States to apply for a provisional waiver while in the United States, provided they meet all I-601A Provisional Waiver eligibility requirements and warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.

There are several circumstances that may render an individual ineligible for a provisional unlawful presence waiver. For example, individuals with final orders of exclusion, deportation, or removal; individuals who are currently in removal proceedings that are not administratively closed at the time of filing; and individuals who have a pending application with USCIS for lawful permanent resident status are not eligible to apply for the provisional unlawful presence waiver. Individuals for whom there is a reason to believe that they may be subject to grounds of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence at the time of the immigrant visa interview with a Department of State (DOS) consular officer also are ineligible for the provisional unlawful presence waiver. See 8 CFR 212.7(e) (2013).

If a USCIS officer determines, based on the record, that there is a reason to believe that the applicant may be subject to a ground of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence at the time of his or her immigrant visa interview with a DOS consular officer, USCIS will deny the request for a provisional unlawful presence waiver. See 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(i) (2013).

Since the commencement of the I-601A Provisional Waiver program, the USCIS denied I-601A waiver applications when the applicant had any criminal history. In these cases, if the record contained evidence that an applicant was charged with an offense or convicted of any crime (other than minor traffic citations such as parking violations, red light/stop sign violations, expired license or registration, or similar offenses), regardless of the sentence imposed or whether the offense is a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT), USCIS denied the I-601A waiver application.

The USCIS has now issued guidance to its officers to review all evidence in the record, including any evidence submitted by the applicant or the attorney of record.

If, based on all evidence in the record, it appears that the applicant’s criminal offense: (1) falls within the “petty offense” or “youthful offender” exception under INA section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii) at the time of the I-601A adjudication, or (2) is not a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude under INA section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) that would render the applicant inadmissible, then USCIS officers should not find a reason to believe that the individual may be subject to inadmissibility under INA section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) at the time of the immigrant visa interview solely on account of that criminal offense.

The USCIS officer should continue with the adjudication to determine whether the applicant meets the other requirements for the provisional unlawful presence waiver, including whether the applicant warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.

This news has been much-anticipated by potential waiver applicants who have certain convictions such as Driving Under the Influence (DUI) on their record. Assuming the applicant’s criminal conviction(s) does not trigger a ground of inadmissibility, or their criminal conviction falls under the “petty offense” or “youthful offender” exception, waiver applicants may now proceed with their I-601A Provisional Waiver applications.

Keep in mind that it is extremely important for applicants with criminal conviction(s) in their background to prepare and submit a memorandum, together with their I-601A waiver package, clearly describing why their criminal conviction(s) does not trigger a ground of inadmissibility; or why their criminal conviction falls under the “petty offense” or “youthful offender” exception of INA section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii).

How to Prepare a Powerful Psychological Evaluation to Prove Extreme Hardship for the I-601 and I-601A Waiver

January 13, 2014 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer

Extreme Hardship Defined

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.

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

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, in pertinent part:

(I) 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.

(**Please note that the I-601a Provisional Waiver requires a showing of extreme hardship to the U.S. citizen spouse or parent. In other words, lawful permanent residents are not allowed to be the qualifying relative for I-601a Provisional Waivers).

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 of Immigration Appeals 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 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 lge, 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 lge, 20 I&N Dec. at 882). The adjudicator ”must consider the entire range of factors concerning hardship in their totality and determine whether the combination of hardships takes the case beyond those hardships ordinarily associated with deportation.” Id. The actual hardship associated with an abstract hardship factor such as family separation, economic disadvantage, cultural readjustment, et cetera, differs in nature and severity depending on the unique circumstances of each case, as does the cumulative hardship a qualifying relative experiences as a result of aggregated individual hardships. See, e.g., Matter of Bing Chih Kao and Mei Tsui Lin, 23 I&N Dec. 45, 51 (BI2001) (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).

The Psychological Evaluation

The psychological evaluation can thus be a powerful piece of evidence to demonstrate and prove the extreme hardship that the qualifying relative would suffer if he or she is separated from the applicant; or alternatively, if the qualifying relative leaves the U.S. and re-locates abroad in order to be with the applicant. I will first go over an I-601 waiver application that was approved by the AAO to examine the characteristics of a successful and persuasive psychological evaluation.

The applicant in this case is a native and citizen of Mexico who was found to be inadmissible to the United States pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), for fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact in order to procure an immigration benefit. The applicant is married to a U.S. citizen and seeks a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to Section 212(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i), in order to reside with her husband in the United States.

The qualifying relative (the U.S. citizen husband) was born in Texas. He is 58 years old, and has 10 siblings, 4 children from previous relationships, and 3 grandchildren who all reside in the U.S. He has a 88 year old elderly father. He fears that he would not have a job if he moves to Mexico and consequently would not be able to afford visits to see his father. He encountered a shoot-out between drug cartels and the Mexican military during a visit to see his mother-in-law during a visit to Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. He and his nephew were stopped by armed men with machine guns who threatened their lives during a visit to see his mother-in-law in the state of Sinaloa, Mexico. A letter from his sister-in-law confirms the violence in Los Mochis Mexico, and the general state of disrepair of the house there that the applicant and her U.S. citizen husband would have to live in.

The psychological report submitted as part of the I-601 waiver application expressly states the following:

The U.S. citizen husband was the middle child of eleven children who grew up in a home with a physically and verbally abusive alcoholic father.
The U.S. citizen husband watched and heard his mother being beaten and felt powerless to stop his father.
The U.S. citizen husband is very close to his siblings since they supported each other while growing up in order to survive.
The U.S. citizen husband grew up in Idaho where he felt a sense of discrimination and prejudice during his school years.
When the U.S. citizen husband was 23 years old, he was called back home from the U.S. Army because his mother had died, his father had left, and there was no one to care for his younger siblings.
The U.S. citizen husband’s first marriage was brief and they had a son together. His ex-wife disappeared with his son and he was unable to find him until his son was 12 years old and complained that his mother abused him. His son subsequently lived with him for two years.
The U.S. citizen husband’s physician prescribed him Prozac for his depression which dates back to his first marriage.
The U.S. citizen husband re-married and had two children with his second wife. This marriage lasted 28 years.
When the U.S. citizen husband met his current wife (the I-601 waiver applicant), he felt there was new meaning in life.
He fears he will go into serious depression if she moves back to Mexico without him, and fears that if he moved to Mexico with her, he would deeply miss his children and siblings.
The U.S. citizen husband has a history of depression and anxiety.
The U.S. citizen husband has difficulty sleeping, feels anxious, and had had thoughts of suicide.
The U.S. citizen husband has been diagnosed with Dysthymia and Adjustment Disorder with Depression and Anxiety.
If the wife is not allowed to remain in the U.S., the U.S. citizen husband would experience serious psychological consequences and it his highly likely his depression would worsen to the point he would consider suicide.

In my experience, effective psychological evaluations should always include a detailed personal history of the person being examined (along with the waiver applicant and family members in general). It should concisely and accurately detail the unique circumstances of the patient that makes him or her particularly vulnerable to hardship.

The psychological evaluation in support of a I-601 or I-601a waiver should summarize the psychological and medical history of the patient, including the length of time the patient has suffered from psychological disorders and medical illnesses; any treatments received including surgery; and the medications the patient has been prescribed. This is particularly important because the USCIS can discount the credibility of psychological diagnoses prepared solely to support the I-601 or I-601A waiver application. A discussion of a history of previously diagnosed psychological disorder(s) will go a long ways towards establishing credibility.

The psychological evaluation should describe the emotional impact of both separation and re-location. In other words, it must discuss the psychological and emotional impact on the qualifying relative if he or she becomes separated from the applicant due to inadmissibility; as well as the psychological and emotional impact on the qualifying relative if he or she re-locates abroad in order to be with the applicant.

Since mental and physical well-being have been found to be closely related, the psychological report can also emphasize the physical consequences of patient’s current or future psychological state. For example, if the patient suffers from coronary disease, then an aggravation of his or her psychological disorders could contribute to a fatal heart attack.

The psychological evaluation should state the methodology used to diagnose the patient. It should specify all of the symptoms shown by the patient that led to a particular diagnosis. If applicable, if should expressly state that separation from the applicant (and re-location abroad to be with the applicant) would make the psychological disorders worsen. It should also state what the consequences will be for the patient if his or her psychological disorders worsen, including the possibilities of decompensation or suicide.

A well-written psychological evaluation should have a final section that summarizes the conclusions of the psychologist or psychiatrist. It should emphasize all of the hardships that the patient is currently suffering from, as well as those that he will suffer (or that will grow worse) should the applicant not be admitted to the United States.

It is therefore essential that the psychological evaluation be prepared by a professional who has experience with the unique requirements of the extreme hardship standard used in I-601 and I-601a waiver applications. If your chosen psychologist or psychiatrist does not have such experience, I suggest providing a link to this article and making sure they understand the importance of a well-written and detailed psychological report.

Consular Recommendation of the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Waiver Application to the CBP

January 11, 2014 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer 1 Comment

INA Section § 212(d)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states in relevant part:

Except as provided in this subsection, an alien (i) who is applying for a nonimmigrant visa and is known or believed by the consular officer to be ineligible for such visa under subsection (a) (other than paragraphs (3)(A)(i)(I), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(iii), (3)(C), and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E) of such subsection), may, after approval by the Attorney General of a recommendation by the Secretary of State or by the consular officer that the alien be admitted temporarily despite his inadmissibility, be granted such a visa and may be admitted into the United States temporarily as a nonimmigrant in the discretion of the Attorney General, or (ii) who is inadmissible under subsection (a) (other than paragraphs (3)(A)(i)(I), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(iii), (3)(C), and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E) of such subsection), but who is in possession of appropriate documents or is granted a waiver thereof and is seeking admission, may be admitted into the United States temporarily as a nonimmigrant in the discretion of the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall prescribe conditions, including exaction of such bonds as may be necessary, to control and regulate the admission and return of inadmissible aliens applying for temporary admission under this paragraph.

INA §212(d)(3)(A) thus waives virtually all inadmissibility grounds for non-immigrants including:

health-related grounds (communicable disease, mental illness, drug abuser or addict);
criminal grounds (including crimes involving mortal turpitude, multiple criminal convictions, drug violations, and prostitution);
likelihood of becoming a public charge;
immigration violations (including failure to attend removal proceedings, misrepresentation, false claims of citizenship, alien smuggling, aiding and abetting unlawful employment, student visa abusers, and overstays subject to three– and ten-year bars);
grounds covering persons ordered removed upon arrival, unlawful voters, and U.S. citizens who renounced citizenship to avoid taxation; and
involvement in terrorist activities and association with terrorist organizations.

212(d)(3) non-immigrant waivers by visa applicants are generally filed at a U.S. consulate or embassy abroad. Visa exempt nationals such as Canadians generally have to file in advance of their date of travel at a CBP-designated port of entry or pre-clearance office. All 212(d)(3) waiver applications are then forwarded to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Admissibility Review Office in Washington D.C. Thus, it is not the U.S. Department State or the USCIS that ultimately makes the decision to approve or deny a 212(d)(3) waiver. It is U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The CBP ARO does consider the same factors used by the U.S. Department State when reviewing 212(d)(3) non-immigrant waiver applications but is not bound by them. Specifically, the ARO will first look at whether the 212(d)(3) waiver was “recommended” by the U.S. consular officer. In making a recommendation to CBP, State Department officers are instructed to include:

• The relevant humanitarian, political, economic or public relations factors;

• a statement (where applicable) that DOS is satisfied the alien has a residence abroad which he or she has no intention of abandoning;

• a statement that the alien is properly classified as a nonimmigrant;

• the officer’s precise recommendation and the reasons therefor.

Consular officers are also instructed that a 212(d)(3) non-immigrant waiver may be requested (except as precluded by statute) for any nonimmigrant alien whose presence would not be detrimental to the United States and that the law does not require that recommendations be limited to exceptional, humanitarian or national interest cases.

In fact, consular officers are instructed to exercise discretion and good judgment but may recommend waivers “for any legitimate purpose such as family visits, medical treatment (whether or not available abroad), business conferences, tourism, etc.”

In my experience however, some consular officers are not familiar with the 212(d)(3) waiver process. I have had cases where thoroughly prepared 212(d)(3) waiver packages were initially not accepted by the consular officer at the visa interview; only to be accepted a few days later after repeated inquiries by my office and another visit by the applicant to the consulate. It is important to be clear, concise, and persistent in these matters.

Once the 212(d)(3) non-immigrant waiver is received by the ARO, the reviewing officer at the CBP considers all of the above and also considers that the Congress has deemed these aliens inadmissible to the United States. In considering the waiver, the CBP officer will weigh the benefit, if any, to the United States should the waiver be granted. In situations where the proposed visit is for the purpose of medical treatment, the CBP officer will consider whether such treatment is available to the alien abroad. Above all, CBP officers are reminded that granting of waivers of inadmissibility grounds should not be routine and available just for the asking. Thus, it is extremely important that every 212(d)(3) non-immigrant waiver application be well-prepared with a detailed legal and factual analysis and well-documented with essential support documents.

However, there may be instances where the consular officer refuses to “recommend” a waiver to the ARO in the first place. This may occur when they believe a waiver recommendation is not warranted given factors such as the recency and seriousness of the crime or offense, type of disability, reasons for the proposed travel to the United States and the probable consequences, if any, to the public interests of the United States. What many applicants (and lawyers) do not seem to realize is that there is a process in place for mandatory referrals of 212(d)(3) waiver applications to the Department of State Visa Office for consideration of a “recommendation” to the CBP ARO:

Mandatory referrals are required in the following situations:

Any case where it is requested by the alien or an interested party in the U.S. that it be forwarded;
Any case where the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that pertinent considerations not available at the post may be available to or through the Department;
Prior refusals;
Any case where the alien’s presence or activities in the U.S. might become a matter of public interest or of foreign relations significance;
Any case in which the Department has mandated an advisory opinion be sought;
The case of any alien who is a national of a country which the U.S. does not recognize or with which we have no diplomatic relations;
The case of any alien not classifiable under INA Section 101 (a) (15) (A) or (G) but destined on official business to the United Nations;
Cases of any SILEX or BUSVIS/SILEX alien and of certain CHINEX or BUSVIS/CHINEX aliens;
The case of any Soviet applying for an I visa;
Any case involving 212(a)(3)(B);
Any cases in which the consular officer recommends a term of greater than one year.

Having said that, the decision-making of consular officers are always given deference. It is always better to present a strong 212(d)(3) waiver application from the beginning and communicate constructively with the consular officer to secure a recommendation to the CBP ARO.

Once a waiver is approved, they are typically approved for a one year period with multiple entries allowed. After the first or second extension, a 5-year validity 212(d)(3) waiver can be given. However, keep in mind that multiple entry waivers are not given to an alien who:

• Has a mental or physical disorder;
• Is a narcotic drug addict or a narcotic trafficker (multiples have been granted before in special cases with DEA/Customs/FBI involvement);
• Is afflicted with a communicable disease;
• Was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and is less than 5 years post-release;
• Has a prostitution related activity within 10 years of visa application.

What is a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude and When is the I-601 Waiver Required?

November 21, 2013 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Legal Overview of Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

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

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

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

There are however three exceptions to the inadmissibility triggered by Section 212(a)(2)(A):

Purely political offense:
- Defined in DOS regulations at 22 CFR 20.41(a)(6).
- Includes offenses that resulted in a conviction obviously based on fabricated charges or predicated on repressive measures against racial, religious, or political minorities.

INA 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I) (also referred to as the “Juvenile Offense Exception”):
- Only 1 CIMT was committed, and
- The alien was under age 18 at the time, and
- The CIMT was committed and the alien was released (if confined) more than 5 years before the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status.

INA 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) (also referred to as the “Petty Offense Exception”):
- Only 1 CIMT was committed, and
- The maximum penalty possible did not exceed 1 year, and
- If convicted, the sentence imposed did not exceed 6 months (regardless of the time actually served).

[Read more…]

Petty Offense Exception – When the I-601 Waiver or 212(d)(3) Waiver is Not Required

November 12, 2013 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. § 1182] sets forth classes of aliens who are inadmissible, including aliens who are convicted of certain crimes:

(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:

(2) Criminal and related grounds. –

(A) Conviction of certain crimes. –

(i) In general. -Except as provided in clauses (ii), 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 any attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime…

Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) thus provides that aliens who have committed a crime involving moral turpitude are inadmissible.

However, Section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii) [§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)] sets forth two exceptions:

(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 released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the crime) more than 5 years before the date of 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).

Section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii) (emphasized by me in bold above) is referred to as the “petty offense exception”. The practical effect of this exception is that applicants who are convicted of a single crime involving moral turpitude are not deemed inadmissible for a visa or admission into the United States if the single criminal conviction falls within this petty offense exception.

In other words, if Section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii) applies, then the I-601 waiver for intending immigrants (normally required to waive the ground of inadmissibility triggered by a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude), or 212(d)(3) waiver for non-immigrants, is not needed.

In order to qualify for the petty offense exception, you must provide the actual state criminal statute clearly outlining the nature of the offense and the penalty at the time the offense was committed. You must also submit the court record showing the final disposition of the case, that should include the charge and the sentence. A legal memorandum clearly outlining your qualification for the petty offense exception is recommended.

« Previous Page