Smart Immigration Lawyer

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

By 2 Comments

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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.

I-601 Waiver Approved for Romanian Client Subject to 10 Year Unlawful Presence Bar

By 3 Comments

I-601 Waiver Approved for Romanian Client Subject to 10 Year Unlawful Presence Bar

Our office received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for a Romanian client who was subject to the 10 year unlawful presence bar under INA Section 212(a)(9)(B).

She entered the U.S. under the J-1 visa and was granted “duration of status” upon entry.  She then resided in the U.S. for approximately 7 years until she received a notice of J-1 exchange visitor status violation in 2009.  She was informed that  as of the date of the USCIS notice, she was considered out of status and unlawfully present in the U.S.  She was then granted voluntary departure during removal proceedings and returned to her home country of Romania.  The couple contacted my office after the wife was denied at her immigrant visa interview at the U.S. embassy in Bucharest due to being subject to the 10 year unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility.

Note: For non-immigrants admitted for Duration of Status, if the USCIS finds a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for an immigration benefit, unlawful presence will begin to accrue on the day after the request is denied.  If an immigration judge makes a determination of nonimmigrant status violation in exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings, unlawful presence begins to accrue the day after the immigration judge’s order.  It must be emphasized that the accrual of unlawful presence neither begins on the date that a status violation occurs, nor on the day on which removal proceedings are initiated. See 8 CFR 239.3.

An I-601 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility requires a showing that the applicant’s U.S. citizen spouse or parent would suffer “extreme hardship” if the applicant is refused admission into the United States.  A US citizen fiancé(e) may also be a qualifying relative for purposes of the waiver according to 9 FAM 41.81 N9.3(a) and 8 CFR 212.7(a)(1)(i).

”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 her husband’s situation met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship.”  I also discussed and presented evidence of her rehabilitation, good moral character, and overall dedication as a wife and mother who was integral to the care and well-being of her ill U.S. citizen husband.

This case was particularly difficult because the U.S. citizen husband was born and raised in Romania himself.  He was residing in Romania with the wife at the time the waiver was filed and working for a U.S. company with wages sufficient to support the family. We had to overcome the presumption that a U.S. citizen of Romanian origin, who speaks the local language, was educated in the country, and already residing abroad with his wife and son, has adjusted to life abroad and is not suffering extreme hardship.

Given the location of husband and wife in Romania, I worked with a Romanian clinical psychologist to ensure that her psychological evaluation of the U.S. citizen husband conformed to the specific needs and requirements of the I-601 waiver. 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:

  • Letter and medical records from the physician of the U.S. citizen husband confirming his high blood pressure and hypertension.
  • Letter from a Romanian clinical psychologist confirming the U.S. citizen husband’s clinical anxiety disorder and the risk of escalation of the disorder due to the immigration consequences of his wife’s removal and subsequent inadmissibility.
  • Proof of bankruptcy and foreclosure filed by the U.S. citizen husband as a result of the financial consequences of caused by his wife’s removal from the United States and subsequent inadmissibility.
  • Evidence that his U.S. employment would be soon lost due to his diminished performance and extended absences caused by his wife’s removal and inadmissibility from the U.S.
  • Specific information from official sources on the country conditions of Romania including its poor health system
  • Proof of extended visits and household expenses in two countries that led to financial depletion of the U.S. citizen husband’s assets
  • Affidavits demonstrating my client’s good moral character and her past contribution to the welfare of the U.S. and its economy

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 return to their lives back in the United States.

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

By Leave a Comment

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

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.

Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Advance Parole, and Adjustment of Status under Arrabally

By Leave a Comment

Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Advance Parole, and Adjustment of Status under Arabally

Overview of Adjustment of Status

According to INA  Section 245(a), the status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if:

  1. the alien makes an application for such adjustment,
  2. the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and
  3. an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.

Overview of the 3 and 10 Year Unlawful Presence Bars

INA Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) is broken into two (2) sub-groups:

  • Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) of the Act (3-year bar). This provision renders inadmissible for three (3) years those aliens, who were unlawfully present for more than 180 days but less than one (1) year, and who departed from the United States voluntarily prior to the initiation of removal proceedings.
  • Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Act (10-year bar). This provision renders inadmissible an alien, who was unlawfully present for one (1) year or more, and who seeks again admission within ten (10) years of the date of the alien’s departure or removal from the United States.

Section 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) of the Act defines “unlawful presence” for purposes of sections 212(a)(9)(B)(i) and 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) of the Act to mean that an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States, if the alien is:

  • present after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Secretary of Homeland Security; or
  • present without being admitted or paroled.

Both the 3 and 10 year unlawful presence bars can be waived pursuant to section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act which states:

Waiver. – The [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 [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.

This waiver pursuant to 212(a)(9)(B)(v) is applied for through the I-601 “extreme hardship” waiver discussed extensively on this web site.

Triggering the Bar by Departing the United States and Matter of Arrabally

In the past, an alien who was not inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States was ineligible for adjustment of status (unless protected under INA Section 245(i)).  Such a person, when petitioned for permanent residence by a U.S. citizen spouse for example, had to leave the U.S. and attend a consular interview at the U.S. embassy abroad in order to complete the immigrant visa process.

By leaving the U.S. after accruing more than 180 days or one (1) year of unlawful presence, the 3-year or 10-year bar to admission under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act was triggered.  The I-601 waiver was subsequently required.

In Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that an alien who leaves the United States temporarily pursuant to advance parole under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Act does not make a departure from the United States within the meaning of section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Act.

Advance parole is an administrative practice derived from the general parole authority in INA § 212(d)(5), giving an individual who is in the United States advance authorization to enter the United States after temporary travel abroad.  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has the authority to grant advance parole and issue a Form I-512L, an advance parole authorization document.  Form I-512L allows a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or other immigration inspector at a U.S. port-of-entry to parole an individual into the United States.  Advance parole does not guarantee subsequent parole into the United States.  The inspecting immigration official may, in his or her discretion, deny parole at the port-of-entry.

In a series of AAO decisions citing Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly thereafter, applicants who entered without inspection and subsequently obtained Temporary Protected Status (TPS), were allowed to use advance parole obtained pursuant to section 212(d)(5)(A) to temporarily leave the U.S., re-enter the U.S., and pursue pending applications for adjustment of status.  They were deemed to have NOT made a “departure” from the United States for purposes of section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Act.

In other words, the 3 and 10 year unlawful presence bars were not triggered.  Accordingly, the applicants were not deemed inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) and 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Act.  Additionally, they were deemed to have been paroled into the United States, and now eligible for adjustment of status under INA Section 245(a).

In these cases, the applicants were allowed to proceed with their adjustment of status applications in the United States based upon their  marriage to a U.S. citizen spouse.  Just as importantly, the I-601 extreme hardship waiver  was deemed unnecessary since the 3 and 10 year unlawful presence bars were not triggered.

It should be noted that this “beneficial interpretation” using Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly would extend to any immediate relative of a U.S. citizen applying for adjustment of status (i.e. the spouse, child under 21, or parent of a U.S. citizen son or daughter over 21 years old).

In summary, this has been welcome news for those granted TPS since Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly was decided.  Those who entered the U.S. without inspection and overstayed for 6 months or longer, subsequently obtained Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and are married U.S. citizens, have been able to obtain advance parole, leave the United States, and re-enter the U.S. to proceed with their adjustment of status to permanent residence without need for the I-601 extreme hardship waiver.

Other Inadmissibility Considerations

Prior to traveling abroad under advance parole, it is important to determine whether other grounds of inadmissibility may apply. Keep in mind that Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly discussed above benefits those who are only subject to the 3 or 10 year bar upon their departure from the United States.  As such, the inspecting immigration officer may deny  entry into the United States for those holding advance parole if the officer finds that any of the other inadmissibility grounds apply.

For example, an applicant who has already triggered the unlawful presence bars under INA Section 212(a)(9)(B) or the permanent bar under INA Section 212(a)(9)(C) (by previously leaving and re-entering without advance parole) may still be subject to these bars.

Future travel under advance parole will not cure previously incurred bars.  Immigration-related fraud or misrepresentation and false claims to U.S. citizenship can also bar admission.  Thus, prior to departing the United States, applicants with advance parole must consider all other inadmissibility grounds including criminal inadmissibility grounds identified at INA Section 212(a)(2).

Unexecuted deportation or removal order. If such an order exists, and if the applicant were to depart the United States on advance parole, he or she likely would be found to have executed the deportation/removal order and may not be able to re-enter the United States for a prescribed period of time.

To avoid this, an applicant with an unexecuted removal order can submit a motion to reopen removal proceedings with the Immigration Court or the BIA.  Once removal proceedings are reopened, the removal order no longer exists.  The applicant can then move to administratively close or terminate the reopened proceedings.  If either termination of proceedings or administrative closure is granted, the applicant can travel on advance  parole without risking the consequences of an executed removal order.  I typically contact the relevant ICE Office of the Chief Council (OCC) to request that the parties  jointly move to reopen and then administratively close or terminate the removal proceedings.

I-601 Waivers for Physical or Mental Disorders with Associated Harmful Behavior

By Leave a Comment

Waivers for Physical or Mental Disorders with Associated Harmful Behavior

The USCIS has issued updated guidance to its adjudicating officers on the health-related grounds of inadmissibility and their associated waivers.  A common inadmissibility that I am contacted for involves INA 212(a)(2)(A)(iii), which deems an alien inadmissible if he/she is determined:

(I) to have a physical or mental disorder and behavior associated with the disorder that may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others; or

(II) to have had a physical or mental disorder and a history of behavior associated with the disorder, which behavior has posed a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others and which behavior is likely to recur or to lead to other harmful behavior;

The USCIS guidance referenced below is addressed to adjudicating officers.

Please keep in mind that waiver applicants should prepare and submit a comprehensive waiver application, that includes an up-to-date psychological evaluation; a statement from an approved U.S. facility or specialist agreeing to evaluate the applicant upon entry into the U.S. and agreeing to file a report with the CDC; evidence of medical insurance to pay for the costs of the mental disorder; among other supporting documents relevant to the case.

Physical or Mental Disorders with Associated Harmful Behavior

Applicants who have physical or mental disorders and harmful behavior associated with those disorders are inadmissible.  The inadmissibility ground is divided into two subcategories:

  • Current physical or mental disorders, with associated harmful behavior.
  • Past physical or mental disorders, with associated harmful behavior that is likely to recur or lead to other harmful behavior.

There must be both a physical or mental disorder and harmful behavior to make an applicant inadmissible based on this ground.  Neither harmful behavior nor a physical/mental disorder alone renders an applicant inadmissible on this ground.  Harmful behavior is defined as behavior that may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the applicant or others.

[Read more…]

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

By

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

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.

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

By Leave a Comment

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

I-601 Waiver Legal News

The applicant is a native and citizen of Israel who was found to be inadmissible to the United States pursuant to INA Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), for having been unlawfully present in the United States for more than one year and seeking readmission within ten years of his last departure from the United States.  The applicant entered the United States with a B-2 visitor’s visa.  He departed from the United States on a validly approved advance parole, received after filing for adjustment of status.  The applicant is the spouse of a U.S. citizen and seeks a waiver of inadmissibility to reside in the United States.

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

(B) Aliens Unlawfully Present.-

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

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

(v) Waiver. – The Attorney General [now the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary)] has sole discretion to waive clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse or son or daughter of a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General (Secretary) that the refusal of admission to such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such alien.

In Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565-66 (BIA 1999), the BIA provided a list of factors it deemed relevant in determining whether an alien has established extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. The factors include the presence of a lawful permanent resident or United States citizen spouse or parent in this country; the qualifying relative’s family’s ties outside the United States; the conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties in such countries; the financial impact of departure from this country; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.  The BIA added that not all of the foregoing factors need be analyzed in any given case and emphasized that the list of factors was not an exclusive list.  Relevant factors, though not extreme in themselves, must be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists.  In each case, the trier of fact 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. Matter of 0-J-0-. 21 I&N Dec. 381, 383 (BIA 1996). (Citations omitted).

An analysis under Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez is appropriate.  The AAO notes that extreme hardship to a qualifying relative must be established in the event that he or she accompanies the applicant and in the event that he or she remains in the United States, as a qualifying relative is not required to reside outside of the United States based on t he denial of the applicant’s waiver request.

The factors cited by the AAO as persuasive in approval of this I-601 waiver application are the following:

  • The applicant’s spouse has a history of severe problems with alcohol, has sought treatment for her illness, and attends Alcoholics Anonymous.
  • The applicant’t spouse does not have custody of her son (who resides with his father).
  • The applicant’s spouse recovered from her alcohol addiction through the help of the applicant, and after their marriage, began to see her son more often.  Her son has subsequently developed a close bond with the applicant.
  • The applicant’s spouse fears relapse into alcoholic abuse due to the stress of possible separation from her husband or relocation to Israel.
  • The applicant’s spouse has suffered from emotional instability since adolescence, has been admitted to hospital intensive care in the past, and her mother confirms that the applicant’s spouse is suffering emotionally due to possible separation from her husband.
  • The applicant’s spouse has never lived outside the United States, is not Jewish, does not speak Hebrew or any other foreign language, and all of her friends and relatives live in the United States.
  • The applicant’s spouse does not earn enough income to support a decent life for herself or allow her to help her son
  • A psychological evaluation of the applicant’s spouse confirms that she relies on the applicant for her emotional stability as she has been married three times before, with each marriage only lasting less than a year.
  • The psychological evaluation confirms that the applicant’s spouse fears she may drop back into her old drinking habits without her husband’s day-to-day support.
  • The psychological evaluation states that the applicant and his spouse are in a committed and complementary relationship.
  • The psychological evaluation finds that upon separation, the applicant’s spouse would face an emotional and medical crisis, as she has begun to adjust to being a responsible and functional spouse and to trust a male figure for the first time in her life.
  • The psychological evaluation states that substance abuse disorders are usually accompanied by a mood disorder which is either concomitant or the primary cause of the substance abuse.
  • Country condition information from the U.S. Department of State state that Israel has been experiencing violence and instability.

The key takeaway from this case is that the qualifying relative’s socio-economic, emotional, and psychological history should always be mentioned if it makes him or her particularly vulnerable to the extreme hardships brought upon by possible separation or relocation.

In this case, the U.S. citizen spouse has a history of emotional instability including alcoholism, and estrangement from her son.  She was hospitalized in the past, married three times before, and her psychological evaluation confirms that she has not been able to trust a male figure in her life until she met and married the applicant.  Only after her marriage to the applicant did her life improve, allowing her to recover from alcoholic abuse, manage her emotional instability, and begin a renewed relationship with her son.

Whenever possible, it is important to work with a psychologist or psychiatrist who has a history of treating you so that the evaluation carries more credibility in the eyes of the USCIS.  Psychological evaluations done solely for the purpose of the I-601 waiver can be discounted as less than credible by the USCIS.

However, a well-researched and properly drafted psychological evaluation, even one conducted primarily to support a I-601 waiver application, can be very helpful in several ways:

1. It can detail and confirm the unique background of the qualifying relative’s life that makes him or her particularly vulnerable to extreme hardship.  For example, a history of alcoholism, drug abuse, mental disorders, spousal abuse, growing up in a single-family home or as an orphan, and so forth.

2. It can help summarize medical conditions of the qualifying relative that are often difficult to obtain from physicians who routinely refuse to write letters on behalf of their patients.

3. When properly drafted by a psychologist or psychiatrist with experience in extreme hardship waiver cases, they help reinforce the psychological and emotional consequences of possible separation or relocation in a powerful way.

AAO Approves I-601 Waiver for 10 Year Unlawful Presence Bar

By Leave a Comment

AAO Approves I-601 Waiver for 10 Year Unlawful Presence Bar

I-601 Waiver Legal News

The applicant is a native and citizen of Pakistan who was found to be inadmissible to the United States pursuant to section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), for having been unlawfully present in the United States for more than one year and again seeking admission within ten years of his last departure from the United States.  The applicant is the spouse of a United States citizen.  He seeks a waiver of inadmissibility to reside in the United States with his family.

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

(B) Aliens Unlawfully Present.-

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

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

Section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act provides for a waiver of section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) inadmissibility as follows:

The Attorney General [now Secretary of Homeland Security] 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 … 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.

The AAO states that 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 deportation, 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. at 631-32; Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. at 883; 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, 81 3 (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.”

The AAO specifically states that 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., In re 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).

Regardless of the type of family relationship involved, the hardship resulting from family separation is determined based on the actual impact of separation on an applicant, and all hardships must be considered in determining whether the combination of hardships takes the case beyond the consequences ordinarily associated with removal or inadmissibility. Matter of 0-J-0-, 21 I&N Dec. at 3 83.   Nevertheless, although the AAO requires an applicant to show that a qualifying relative would experience extreme hardship both in the event of relocation and in the event of separation, in analyzing the latter scenario, the AAO gives considerable, if not predominant, weight to the hardship of separation itself, particularly in cases involving the separation of spouses from one another and/or minor children from a parent. Salcido-Salcido, 13 8 F.3d at 1293.

What this means for the I-601 or I-601A waiver applicant is that every hardship to the qualifying relative that results from the separation and relocation should be listed, described, and most importantly, described in detail as to its unique circumstances. For example, while a U.S. citizen spouse re-locating to Mexico may not be considered an “extreme hardship” in and of itself; showing that the U.S. citizens spouse would face dangerous conditions in the specific region of Mexico where she will reside, cannot re-locate her child abroad due to an existing child custody agreement, and suffers from a history of psychological depression, may demonstrate the extreme nature of the hardship.

The factors in this case cited by the AAO in finding extreme hardship and approval of the I-601 waiver are:

  • Psychological evaluation, letters from medical professionals and an affidavit from the qualifying spouse confirming the severity of her depression due to the applicant’s absence.
  • The psychological evaluation explains that the qualifying spouse has had a history of psychological issues, such as depression, which began prior to her separation from the applicant.  If the applicant is unable to return to the United States due to his inadmissibility, the psychologist finds that the qualifying spouse may “require hospitalization in order to protect her from acting on her suicidal ideation.”
  • Medical issues of the qualifying relative including chronic hyperthyroidism and sinus allergies.
  • Financial hardship being suffered by the qualifying relative as shown by her tax returns, banking documentation, letter from the qualifying spouse’s employer, and lease for the qualifying spouse’s residence
  • Qualifying spouse’s affidavit further detailing her financial struggles, and indicating that she and her daughters “live in a very small one bedroom apartment where [they] share the same bed” and that she “can barely make ends meet and every single day is a great financial and emotional struggle.”  The qualifying spouse explains her struggles as a single parent in raising two young children.
  • The psychological evaluation also notes that the qualifying spouse, who lost her own father as a young child, is also suffering emotional issues because she does not want her own children to be raised with only one parent.
  • Country conditions showing Pakistan as “extremely unstable, and dangerous, particularly for Americans.”
  • Qualifying spouse’s affidavit stating that the applicant is unemployed in Pakistan and unable to work due to a disability caused by Polio.  Therefore, if the qualifying spouse were to relocate to Pakistan and the applicant is still unemployed, she may face financial difficulty and other hardships as a result.

The specific supporting documentation provided in this case includes:

  • Affidavits from the qualifying spouse and the applicant
  • Naturalization certificates for family members
  • Letters from medical professionals
  • Psychological evaluation
  • Tax returns, some banking documentation, a pay stub and a letter from the applicant’s employer in Canada
  • Letter from the qualifying spouse’s employer
  • Lease for the qualifying spouse’s residence
  • Country condition materials.

The key points to take away from this case are that psychological evaluations are much more effective when conducted by a medical professional who has been treating the patient for a long period of time.  When a psychological evaluation is conducted solely for purposes of the I-601 waiver, the evaluation should state, if at all possible, the long history of the psychological disorder(s) suffered by the qualifying relative.

Additionally, disabilities of the applicant, in so far as they affect the qualifying relative, should also be noted.  In this case, the applicant had a disability due to polio which affects his ability to obtain employment in Pakistan (thereby causing financial hardship to the qualifying relative should she re-locate to Pakistan).

Letters from the qualifying relative’s employer are also effective if they support financial hardship.  For example, the employer stating that the qualifying relative’s job performance has suffered and may lead to termination due to the emotional impact of the immigration-caused separation, would support the case for both financial and psychological hardships.

It should also be noted that 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) . . . .

The BIA 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 must bring forward to establish that she 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.

The positive factors in this case were found to outweigh the adverse factors and discretion was exercised in favor of the applicant.

Get Answers Now

You may request a Free Immigration Consultation.

Check Out Our Client Reviews

Read what people like you are saying about us on Facebook in our Client Testimonials.

Recent Posts