Inadmissibility - Page 7 of 13 - Smart Immigration Lawyer

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

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

I-601 Waiver Legal News

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

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

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

(H) Waiver authorized for certain misrepresentations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I-601 Waiver Legal News

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

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

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

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

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

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

(B) Aliens Unlawfully Present. –

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

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

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

A waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act is dependent on a showing that the bar to admission imposes extreme hardship on a qualifying relative, which includes the U.S. citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of the applicant. The applicant’s U.S. citizen spouse is the only qualifying relative in this case. Hardship to the applicant or their child, born in 2012, can be considered only insofar as it results in hardship to a qualifying relative. If extreme hardship to a qualifying relative is established, the applicant is statutorily eligible for a waiver, and USCIS then assesses whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296, 301 (BIA 1996).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In evaluating whether relief is warranted in the exercise of discretion, the factors adverse to the alien include the nature and underlying circumstances of the exclusion ground at issue, the presence of additional significant violations of this country’s immigration laws, the existence of a criminal record, and if so, its nature and seriousness, and the presence of other evidence indicative of the alien’s bad character or undesirability as a permanent resident of this country.

The favorable considerations include family ties in the United States, residence of long duration in this country (particularly where alien began residency at a young age), evidence of hardship to the alien and his family if he is excluded and deported, service in this country’s Armed Forces, a history of stable employment, the existence of property or business ties, evidence of value or service in the community, evidence of genuine rehabilitation if a criminal record exists, and other evidence attesting to the alien’s good character (e.g., affidavits from family, friends and responsible community representatives). See Matter of Mendez-Moralez,”-21 i&N bee. 296, 301 (BIA 1996).

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

In this case, the favorable factors are:

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

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

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

Client Approval: I-601A Provisional Waiver Approved within 3 Months for Mexican Client

May 7, 2015 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

We recently received approval of the I-601A Provisional Waiver that we prepared and submitted for a Mexican applicant married to a U.S. citizen husband within 3 months of its submission to the USCIS.

Our I-601A Provisional Waiver application package prepared by our law firm included a complete set of USCIS forms requesting consideration of the I-601A Provisional Waiver; a 25 page waiver statement detailing relevant case law favorable to my client’s situation and presenting the extreme hardships that applied to this case; and a comprehensive collection of exhibits to prove the extreme hardships being presented.

To be eligible for the I-601A Provisional Waiver for Unlawful Presence, an applicant must fulfill ALL of the following conditions:

Be 17 years of age or older.
Be the spouse, child, or adult child of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Have an approved Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, or Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant.
Have a pending immigrant visa case with the Dept. of State for the approved immediate relative petition and have paid the Dept. of State immigrant visa processing fee.
Be able to demonstrate that refusal of your admission to the United States will cause extreme hardship to your U.S. citizen or lawful permanent spouse or parent.
Be physically present in the United States to file your application for a provisional unlawful presence waiver and provide biometrics.
Not have been scheduled for an immigrant visa interview by Dept. of State before January 3, 2013.
You are inadmissible ONLY for unlawful presence in the United States for more than 180 days but less than 1 year during a single stay (INA Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I)), or unlawful presence in the United States for 1 year or more during a single stay (INA Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).

An applicant is NOT eligible for the I-601A Provisional Waiver for Unlawful Presence if any of the following conditions apply:

You are subject to one or more grounds of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence.
You have a pending Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status with the USCIS
You are in removal proceedings, unless your removal proceedings have been administratively closed and have not been placed back on the Dept. of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review calendar to continue your removal proceedings at the time you file the Form I-601A.
You are subject to a final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion, or to the reinstatement of a prior order of removal, deportation, or exclusion
You are subject to a Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) order reinstating a prior order of removal, deportation, or exclusion
Dept. of State initially acted before January 3, 2013, to schedule your Immigrant Visa (IV) interview for the approved immediate relative petition upon which your provisional unlawful presence waiver application is based, even if your immigrant visa interview has been canceled, you failed to appear for the interview, or your interview was rescheduled on or after Jan. 3, 2013.
You fail to establish that the refusal of your admission would result in extreme hardship to your U.S. citizen spouse or parent, or that your application should be approved as a matter of discretion

In this case, the applicant is a Mexican national who entered the U.S. without inspection at the age of 19 to find a more secure life in the United States. Since entering the U.S., she learned English, obtained gainful employment, and has remained law-abiding to the present day. She met her U.S. citizen husband, fell in love with him, and had a son together.

The favorable factors of this case discussed in detail in our I-601A Provisional Waiver application include:

The medical condition of the couple’s U.S. citizen son who suffers from anemia.
The medical condition of the U.S. citizen husband who suffers from Generalized Anxiety Disorder, partly as a result of the burden he has taken on to financially support his younger brother and his parents.
The financial crisis that this family is undergoing, including declaration of bankruptcy by the U.S. citizen husband’s parents. The parents subsequently rely upon the joint-income of their son and daughter-in-law (the U.S. citizen husband and his Mexican wife, respectively) who work to support the parents, themselves, their son, as well as the U.S. citizen husband’s younger brother.
The financial strain placed upon the U.S. citizen husband as he and his wife struggle to pay his parent’s mortgage for the family home where the entire family all reside
The employer-provided health insurance that the U.S. citizen husband and their infant son rely on to receive treatment for their medical conditions, and its termination should he be forced to re-locate to Mexico to be with his wife
The extensive family ties of the U.S. citizen husband in the U.S. including three brothers, two sisters, and an extended family of cousins, aunts, and uncles, all who reside in close proximity with each other.
The close-knit and interrelated relationships between the family members that would lead to a spiral of psychological distress upon the entire family should the applicant be forced to return to Mexico

This case is an important one because it demonstrates that cumulative hardships and individual circumstances can “add up” to meet the extreme hardship standard. While any single hardship in this case may not be considered “extreme” in and of itself, it was only by meticulously demonstrating how they interrelate with each other and create “downward spiral of expanding and worsening hardships” (my description) that we obtained approval of this I-601A Provisional Waiver.

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

May 7, 2015 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for a citizen of South Korea who was subject to a life-time bar from being admitted to the United States for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude under INA Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Our client was previously convicted of a crime involving insurance fraud and sentenced to one-year probation.

Our office was contacted after the South Korean wife and her U.S. citizen husband prepared and filed for the I-601 Waiver on their own after the applicant was deemed inadmissible at her consular interview which took place at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul. Their “self-prepared” I-601 Waiver triggered a comprehensive “Request for Evidence” from the USCIS stating that the couple had failed to adequately establish and prove “extreme hardship.”

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

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

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

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

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

• One involving national security or policy considerations; or

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

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

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

• Presence of a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen spouse or parent in this country;
• Qualifying relative’s family ties outside the United States;
• Conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the
extent of the qualifying relative’s ties in such countries;
• Financial impact of departure from this country; and
• Significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical
care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate. ld. at 565-566.

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

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

In order to overcome the initial opinion of the USCIS, I initiated our firm’s comprehensive process for preparation of powerful and effective immigration waiver applications. I forwarded our Extreme Hardship Worksheet to my clients, which contains questions designed to elicit extreme hardships and other persuasive factors. I also recommended the couple to a clinical psychologist well-versed in preparing psychological evaluations for immigration waivers and who offers a significantly discounted fee for my clients (please refer to my post on the elements of a powerful psychological evaluation for I-601 waiver applications for more details).

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

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

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

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

The favorable factors in this case included the following:

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

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

Client Approval: I-601 Waiver for Fraud/Misrepresentation Approved for Same-Sex Couple

March 2, 2015 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for a Chinese client who was subject to the fraud/misrepresentation ground of inadmissibility under INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). He previously misrepresented the nature of his relationship with his same-sex partner during his application for a F-1 student visa. He did so because he feared that his same-sex relationship might become known to the Chinese government if it was disclosed to the US Dept. of State.

After entering the U.S. as an international student on a validly approved F-1 visa, he married his partner and applied for adjustment of status to permanent residence. The couple was denied at their adjustment of status interview when the facts of the prior misrepresentation became known to the interviewing USCIS officer. The same-sex couple contacted my office at that point to prepare their I-601 “Extreme Hardship” waiver and submit it on their behalf.

An I-601 Application for Waiver pursuant to INA Section 212(i) 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.

”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.

In support of this couple’s I-601 waiver application, my office prepared a comprehensive 24-page legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of the couple’s situation met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship.” We also discussed and presented evidence of the special circumstances same-sex couples are subject to, including the discrimination, harassment, and intimidation of LGBT individuals in China. A table of exhibits also listed a variety of evidence in support of a showing of “extreme hardship” including:

Psychological evaluation by a clinical psychologist verifying the Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Dysthymic Disorder suffered by the U.S. citizen spouse, as well the critical emotional and psychological support provided by the foreign spouse (the waiver applicant)
The cultural and psychological background of the U.S. citizen spouse, including a substantial history of serious mental illness in his immediate family; and a life-long history of shame and loneliness due to his inability to come out to his friends and family
Medical confirmation of the debilitating physical symptoms suffered by the US citizen spouse including severe back pain, fatigue, and insomnia
A detailed discussion (substantiated by credible evidence) of the status of LGBT individuals in China and the repercussions this couple may suffer if they re-locate to China in order to be together
A detailed discussion (substantiated by credible evidence) of the lack of adequate mental health services in China and its potential impact on the US citizen spouse if he were to re-locate to China
A detailed breakdown of household expenses and debts, demonstrating the financial catastrophe that would result should the U.S. citizen spouse be unable to remain healthy and continue his professional work
The good moral character and rehabilitation of the applicant including the specific circumstances and motivation that led to the misrepresentation

As a result of our efforts, our client was approved for the I-601 waiver within 1 month of submission of the waiver by my office. The applicant was also subsequently approved for lawful permanent residence and now resides together with his spouse inside the U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

”Extreme hardship,” for purposes of the I-601 Waiver, has a special meaning under U.S. immigration law. The factors considered relevant in determining extreme hardship include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 24, 2014 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer 2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Client Approval: Humanitarian Parole Approved for Medical Emergency within 23 Days of Filing

October 12, 2014 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office recently received approval of a Humanitarian Parole request filed on behalf of a client who is subject to the 10 year “unlawful presence bar” pursuant to INA Section 212(a)(9)(B)(2). She previously entered the U.S. on a B-2 visitor visa but remained out of status in the U.S. for over 3 years before departing back to her home country.

Parole is governed my numerous Public Laws and U.S. national policy that includes INA Section 212(d)(5) which states:

The Attorney General may, except as provided in subparagraph (B) or in section 1184 (f) of this title, in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States.

It is important to realize that parole is a discretionary authority that allows for the temporary entry of individuals into the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons or for significant public benefit.

It does not constitute “admission” to the United States and it does not convey any immigration benefits to the beneficiary. Common parole requests include medical emergencies, the unification of family members (particularly parents and young children), civil and criminal proceedings, as well as other emergent requests.

The USCIS, ICE and CPB exercise concurrent parole authority. The USCIS authorizes parole for aliens outside the United States for many reasons, including humanitarian. ICE authorizes parole for aliens outside of the United States for many reasons, including law enforcement and intelligence purposes as well as to release detained aliens from custody. CBP authorizes parole at United States ports of entry, including pre-flight inspection facilities.

Humanitarian Parole is an extraordinary measure that allows an otherwise inadmissible alien to come to the United States for a compelling emergency. Cases involving life-threatening medical emergencies, family unification, children under 16 years of age, and physically and/or mentally challenged individuals receive immediate expedited review.

Approximately 1200 Humanitarian Parole requests are received per year and only 25% are granted. The vast majority of Humanitarian Parole requests as thus denied.

I prepared a comprehensive Humanitarian Parole application package on behalf of my client that included:

A detailed point-by-point memorandum presenting the emergency, compelling, and urgent nature of her request
A discussion of my client’s strong, permanent, and irrefutable ties to her country of residence that refuted any notion of “immigrant intent”
A discussion of her rehabilitation from her previous violation of U.S. immigration laws, her good moral character, and that she poses no risk of harm to the United States upon her entry
A discussion of the life-threatening consequences to her U.S. citizen brother should she not be allowed immediately into the United States
A discussion of the significant public benefits to the United States and its citizens served by my client’s entry into the U.S.
A table of exhibits with objective evidence that documented every statement made in the memorandum

Within 23 days of submitting our Humanitarian Parole application package, our request was approved by the USCIS. Our client was granted parole authorization to enter the United States for 7 weeks despite being subject to the 10 year “unlawful presence bar.”

« Previous Page