Spouse Visa - Page 3 of 6 - Smart Immigration Lawyer

I-212 Waiver and I-601 Extreme Hardship Waiver Approved for Chinese Client

December 8, 2015 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office received approval of both the I-601 Waiver (Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility) and I-212 Waiver (Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission) for the Chinese spouse of a U.S. citizen husband.

Our client lawfully entered the U.S. on a B-1/B-2 visitor visa. She overstayed in the U.S. due to a misunderstanding of U.S. immigration laws related to the I-539 Application to Extend Non-Immigrant Status.

She was subsequently removed from the U.S. while attempting re-entry into the U.S.

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

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

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

In Matter of Tin, 14 I & N 371 (1973), and Matter of Lee, 17 I & N Dec. 275 (1978), the Board of Immigration Appeals established the standards to be considered in adjudicating applications for permission to reapply.

In Matter of Tin, the BIA stated that in determining whether consent to reapply for admission should be granted, all pertinent circumstances relating to the application should be considered including: 1. the basis for deportation; 2. recency of deportation; 3. applicant’s length of residence in the United States; 4. the applicant’s good moral character; 5. the applicant’s respect for law and order; 6. evidence of reformation and rehabilitation; 7. The applicant’s family responsibilities; 8. Any inadmissibility to the United States under other sections of law; 9. hardship involving the applicant and others; 10. the need for the applicant’s services in the United States; and 11. whether the applicant has an approved immigrant or nonimmigrant visa petition.

In Matter of Lee, the BIA stated that INA 212(a)(9)(A)(iii) was intended to be remedial rather than punitive, explaining that the factor of “recency of deportation” can only be considered when there is a finding of poor moral character based on moral turpitude in the conduct and attitude of a person which evinces a callous conscience.

Our client was also charged with fraud or willful misrepresentation under INA Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

INA 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.

INA 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).

For practical purposes, when the I-601 “Extreme Hardship” waiver is filed together with the I-212 Waiver, preparing a winning I-601 waiver application (by demonstrating extreme hardship to the qualifying relative and presenting a situation that warrants favorable discretion by the adjudicating officer) allows the applicant to also meet the standard for approval of the I-212 waiver.

In other words, if your I-601 waiver is approved, then the I-212 waiver will generally be approved as well.

We drafted a comprehensive 24+ page waiver memorandum outlining the relevant case law favorable to my client’s situation. It also discussed in detail the extreme hardships the U.S. citizen husband is presently suffering from, and proved how they would worsen in the event of continued separation from his beloved wife. We also highlighted a variety persuasive factors that I believed warranted an exercise of favorable discretion on the part of the USCIS.

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

The U.S. citizen husband shares physical and joint legal custody over his children with his former partner. He would not be allowed to re-locate abroad with some of the children due to regular visitation rights exercised by the mother of the children. His U.S. citizen children would be emotionally and psychologically devastated should their father be forced to leave the U.S. to be with his wife. On the other hand, the U.S. citizen husband finds it increasingly difficult support his household alone given his deteriorating physical and psychological state.
The U.S. citizen husband’s monthly expenses continue to exceed his income. He also does not speak, read, or write Mandarin Chinese and would have limited employment-prospects if he located abroad to China to be with his wife.
The U.S. citizen husband is postponing much-needed surgery for a medical conditions because he cannot afford to stop working and fall deeper into debt. He also needs his wife by his side to help care for his children (and his elderly U.S. citizen mother) during his period of recuperation post-surgery.

Due to our efforts, our client was approved for both the I-212 waiver and I-601 waiver in less than 5 months after submission to the USCIS. This family can now lawfully reside together inside the United States.

Client Approval: I-601 Fraud/Misrepresentation Waiver Approved for Nigerian Client

November 30, 2015 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office recently received approval for the I-601 Waiver for a client found inadmissible to the United States due to fraud/misrepresentation.

The applicant misstated his marital status and the number of children he has in an immigration application, and was subsequently found inadmissible under INA Section 212(a)(6)(C) when he was forthcoming with the facts during his visa interview.

The married couple then contacted our law firm to prepare the I-601 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility on their behalf.

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

INA Section 212(i) of the Act provides 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 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.

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 totality of the circumstances is considered when determining whether denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative.

The favorable factors we presented to secure approval of the I-601 waiver in our client’s case includes the following:

The U.S. citizen spouse suffers from psychological and physical disorders, and has been diagnosed with obesity. The psychological stress, anxiety, and depression caused by her immigration situation leads to a vicious cycle of overeating, which further destabilizes her psychological and physical health, and in turn leads to increased psychological stress and anxiety.
The U.S. citizen spouse lives with her mother and brother, both of whom suffer from serious illnesses and rely upon the U.S. citizen spouse for day-to-day help and financial support.
The U.S. citizen spouse is in severe debt, on the verge of bankruptcy, with monthly expenses that far outstrip her monthly income.
The foreign spouse (the waiver applicant) has no criminal record whatsoever except for the single charge of immigration fraud/misrepresentation, for which he was forthcoming and completely truthful during his visa interview
Country conditions of Nigeria (where the foreign spouse is originally from and resides in) show ethnic, sectarian, and tribal conflicts throughout the country; rampant crime with largely ineffective law enforcement; and travel through large swaths of the countryside limited for U.S. embassy employees due to killings, kidnappings, and violent crime.
U.S. Bureau of Consular Affairs describes Nigeria’s medical facilities as being in poor condition, with inadequately trained nursing staff, diagnostic and treatment equipment often poorly maintained, and many medicines unavailable.
The CIA World Factbook states that 62% of the Nigerian population lives in extreme poverty, living on less than $1 per hour

It is important that the attorney retained to prepare the I-601 waiver or the I-601A provisional waiver be familiar with the conditions of the country where the waiver applicant is from. Our office has prepared I-601 “Extreme Hardship” Waivers and I-601A Provisional Waivers for clients who come from countries throughout the world (including but not limited to, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, France, Japan, Germany, India, Jamaica, Latvia, Mexico, Nigeria, Morocco, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, South Korea, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Vietnam).

Consequently, we have in-depth experience not only researching and presenting a country’s conditions to prove extreme hardship, but precisely showing how our clients’ lives are and would be affected by these conditions.

As a result of our 25-page I-601 waiver application and numerous Exhibits attached to prove the statements made in our “extreme hardship” waiver, our client’s waiver application was approved. This family in need may now reside together in the U.S. and work together to deal with this difficult period in their lives.

AAO Approves I-601 Waiver for INA 212( a)(9)(B) Unlawful Presence Bar

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

I-601 Waiver Legal News

The applicant is this case a native and citizen of Mexico who was found to be inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), for having been unlawfully present in the United States for more than one year.

That section reads:

(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, voluntarily departed the United States . . . 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.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records reflect that the applicant entered the United States without inspection on March 1, 2001 and voluntarily departed in December 2007 pursuant to an order of the immigration judge.

Accordingly, the applicant accrued unlawful presence for more than one year, and his voluntary departure triggered the ten-year bar, rendering him inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Act.

The applicant sought a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to INA 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the INA, 8 U. S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v).

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.

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. Hardship to the applicant and his children can be considered only insofar as it results in hardship to a qualifying relative. The applicant’s U.S. citizen 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 1 984); 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 O-J-O, 21 I&N Dec. 381, 383 (BIA 1996) (quoting Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. at 882). The adjudicator “must consider the entire range of factors concerning hardship in their totality and determine whether the combination of hardships takes the case beyond those hardships ordinarily associated with deportation.” 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 Twi 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, 138 F.3d 1292, 1293 (quoting Contreras-Buenfil v. INS, 712 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1983)); but see Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. at 247 (separation of spouse and children from applicant not extreme hardship due to conflicting evidence in the record and because applicant and spouse had been voluntarily separated from one another for 28 years).

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 illustrates the importance of providing as many details as possible regarding the hardships being suffered by the qualifying relative (or to be suffered in the case of relocation or separative), and more importantly, presenting objective proof of each hardship that is presented to the USCIS. The types of evidence submitted as part of the record in this case include:

copies of invoices
photographs
financial records
affidavits
school records
birth certificates
marriage certificate
Western Union receipts
Kmart Store wire transfers
medical records
letters
criminal records
information about country conditions, education, and employment in Mexico.

The applicant’s wife asserts in the letter dated December 6, 2010 that she would have difficulty living in Mexico because of the living conditions in Michoacan. She contends that there is no electricity, stove, refrigerator, bathroom, or running water in the house of her in-laws. She states that water must be hand carried in buckets from a river that is an hour away on foot, and that the water must first be boiled before it is drinkable. She declares that there is no bathroom to shower so buckets of water and cups are used to bathe, and that the outhouse toilet is away from the house, which worries her because of the wild coyotes, snakes, and scorpions and the far distance from the nearest hospital, which is one hour away. She contends that her daughter’s education would suffer because she does not speak Spanish, and already struggles in school. The applicant’s wife asserts that the schools in Michoacan have few teachers, are small, and lack running water and a bathroom. She declares that Mexico is an unsafe place to live because of drug wars.

The applicant’s wife states in the affidavit dated 2011 that she lives with her parents and daughter, who was born ?2005, and prior to this living arrangement she and her daughter lived with the applicant, who financially supported them. The applicant’s wife asserts that she now works full time while her mother, who has myeloproliferative disorder, takes care of her daughter. She states that she went to Mexico to marry the applicant and spent three months with him Michoacan, and found it was not safe because of drug gangs. She declares that while they were there, a child was kidnapped and killed because his parents could not afford the ransom. She asserts that her husband cannot afford to move from his parent’s house and she sends him money. The applicant’s wife declares that she does not speak much Spanish and does not think she would be able to find enough work to support their daughter. She contends that her daughter needs the applicant and she cannot bear for her to grow up without him. The applicant’s wife asserts that she has been struggling with depression because of separation from her husband and saw a clinical psychologist. She contends that she does not earn enough money to travel to Mexico and that her money is used to support her husband and his parents.

The applicant declares in the letters written i?n 2011 that he misses his wife and daughter, but they would not be able to survive where he lives. He states that his town does not have a clinic, that he does not have transportation, and must travel far to get water that is not safe to drink. He asserts that the school in his town is old, the children are poor and do not have food, and his parent’s house lacks heat and electricity. The applicant contends that there are no jobs in which to earn money to survive and children have died from lack of medicine and medical care. He declares that in Mexico his daughter would not have a school comparable to the one she attends in the United States and would not have sufficient food and clothing for there are days when he and his parents have no food to eat. The applicant asserts that gangs and crime make living in Mexico dangerous.

The asserted hardships of remaining in the United States without the applicant are emotional and financial in nature. The claim of emotional hardship to the applicant’s wife is in agreement with letters from family members, the affidavit from the applicant’s wife, and the psychological evaluation dated 2010. The psychologist states in the evaluation that the applicant’s wife has “symptoms of depression in the context of a 3-year separation from her husband” and diagnosed her with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, and an eating disorder.

The applicant’s wife claims she is experiencing financial hardship without income from her husband. Her claim is congruent with the letter from her employer dated 2010 for it reflects she works full time and earns $10.50 per hour, and the 16 wire transfers and money grams showing that since 2009 she has financially supported her husband. The applicant’s wife’s anxiety about her husband’s safety in Michoacan is in agreement with the submitted travel warning stating that the State of Michoacan is home to the dangerous transnational criminal organization (TOC) “La Familia,” and that there have been attacks on government officials, law enforcement and military personnel, and other incidents of TCO-related violence throughout Michoacan. U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Travel Warning- Mexico (April 22, 2011 ). When the AAO combined the asserted emotional and financial hardship factors together, the AAO found that they demonstrate that the hardship to the applicant’s wife if she remains in the United States while her husband lives in Michoacan is extreme in that it is more than the typical or common hardships of inadmissibility.

The claimed hardships to the applicant’s wife in relocating to Mexico with her husband are having an impoverished living standard, distress about a substandard education for her daughter, not being able to find a job that will pay enough to survive, and fear they will become victims of drug-related violence. The applicant’s assertion that he is not able to support himself in Michoacan is consistent with letters by his wife and the money grams and wire transfers. The applicant’s claim that it is dangerous in Michoacim is in accord with the earlier described travel warning about Mexico. The applicant’s wife’s statement that her daughter is struggling academically and her education will be jeopardized in Michoacan is in agreement with the parent notification stating that the applicant’s daughter was in the low strategic group, and the article from Cambio de Michoacan asserting that Michoacan has over a million people “above the age of 15 that have not finished their basic education, while in the illiteracy category you can find more than 300 thousand Michoacan inhabitants who are illiterate. ” When the asserted hardship factors are considered together, they establish that the hardship to the applicant’s wife in relocating to Mexico would be extreme and more than the common or typical result of inadmissibility.

In Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 2 1 I&N Dec. 296, 301 (BIA 1996), the Board stated that once eligibility for a waiver is established, it is one of the favorable factors to be considered in determining whether the Secretary should exercise discretion in favor of the waiver. Furthermore, the Board stated:

In evaluating whether section 212(h)(l )(B) 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). Id. at 301.

The AAO must then, “[B]alance 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).

The factors adverse to the applicant in the instant case are his entry without inspection in 2001, unlawful presence, as well as any unauthorized employment. The favorable factors are the extreme hardship to the applicant’s wife, the hardship to his young daughter, as well as their maintaining a close relationship during their years of separation. Letters from his wife’s family members attest that the applicant is a good husband and father, and provider for his family. The applicant has no criminal convictions.

When the AAO considered and balanced the favorable factors against the adverse factors, it found that the favorable factors outweigh the adverse factors and the grant of relief in the exercise of discretion is warranted in this case.

Client Approval: I-601 Extraordinary Circumstances Waiver Approved by Showing Exceptional or Extremely Unusual Hardship

August 23, 2015 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for a citizen of Japan who was subject to a life-time bar from being admitted to the United States for conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT) under INA Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

Our client was previously convicted of two separate charges of assault, one of which was considered by the USCIS to be a “violent and dangerous criminal act.”

The court in Matter of Jean, 23 I. & N. Dec. 373 (AG 2002) heightened the standard that requires the government to deny relief to people convicted of violent or dangerous crimes, except in extraordinary circumstances, such as those involving national security or foreign policy considerations, or where the denial of relief would result in exceptional or extremely unusual hardship.

The standard announced in Matter of Jean was subsequently adopted into regulations at 8 CFR § 1212.7(d) (governing 212(h) waivers).

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

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

The Attorney General may also waive the grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(2)(D)(i)-(ii) of the Act with regard to prostitution if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the alien’s admission would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the U.S., and that the alien has been rehabilitated. INA 212(h)(1)(A).

INA 212(h)(1)(B) provides that certain grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)-(II), (B), (D)-(E) of the Act may be waived in the case of an alien who demonstrates that his removal from the United States would result in extreme hardship to his United States citizen or lawful resident parent, spouse, son, or daughter.

Our office was contacted after the Japanese waiver applicant and her U.S. citizen husband (a member of the U.S. Armed Forces) filed for the I-601 Waiver on their own after the applicant was deemed inadmissible at her consular interview. Their “self-prepared” I-601 Waiver triggered a Request for Additional Evidence which stated that the couple had failed to show extraordinary circumstances that would warrant approval of their I-601 waiver application.

In order to meet this heightened standard of review (which is even more difficult to achieve than for a standard “extreme hardship” waiver) , we initiated our firm’s comprehensive process for preparation of powerful and effective immigration waiver applications.

We reviewed all of the material the couple previously submitted to the USCIS, forwarded our Extreme Hardship Worksheet to the couple (which contains questions designed to elicit extreme hardships and other persuasive factors), and provided a comprehensive checklist of supporting documents to gather and return to our office .

We also recommended the couple to a psychologist well-versed in preparing psychological evaluations for immigration waivers and who offers a significantly discounted fee for my clients (please refer to my post on the elements of a powerful psychological evaluation for I-601 waiver applications for more details).

Once we identified the most important factors of the case, we prepared a comprehensive 20 page legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of our client’s situation not only met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship,” but rose to the level of “exceptional or extremely unusual hardship”. We also argued that national security and policy considerations warranted approval of the I-601 waiver based upon the important duties and meritorious service undertaken by the U.S. citizen spouse who is a member of the U.S. Armed Forces.

We presented our own case law that was relevant to the facts and circumstances of our case and supported approval of our waiver application. Additionally, a table of exhibits referenced a variety of objective evidence in support of a showing of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

We discussed and elaborated upon evidence of the waiver applicant’s rehabilitation, good moral character, and her overall dedication as a wife and mother who is integral to the emotional support of her U.S. citizen husband (who suffers from Anxiety Disorder, triggered by heavy combat and fatalities of unit members experienced during his multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan).

We also highlighted the’ waiver applicant’s role in helping her U.S. citizen husband care for his elderly U.S. citizen parents, who suffer from serious life-threatening medical conditions (including Type II Diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, among other conditions), and who rely upon their son for financial support and overall care.

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

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

Client Approval: I-601 Extreme Hardship Waiver Approved for Same-Sex Couple in Less than 3 Months

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

Our office received approval of the I-601 “Extreme Hardship” Waiver for a same-sex couple composed of a Mexican applicant married to his U.S. citizen spouse less than 3 months after it was prepared and submitted by our office.

The U.S. citizen spouse contacted my office after his Mexican spouse attended his 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).

The Mexican spouse previously entered the U.S. as a minor child but remained unlawfully in the U.S. past his 18th birthday. He was subsequently arrested and convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) and given voluntary departure from the U.S.

Our I-601 Waiver application package included a complete set of USCIS forms requesting consideration of the I-601 Waiver; a 24 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.

We drafted a comprehensive 24 page waiver memorandum outlining the relevant case law favorable to our client’s situation. We also discussed in detail the medical, financial, emotional, and psychological hardships the U.S. citizen spouse (and his U.S. citizen parents) are presently suffering from, and proved how these extreme hardships interrelate and would worsen in the event of continued separation of this couple. We also highlighted a variety compelling factors in the life of the applicant that we 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 spouse suffers from chronic and at times, debilitating anxiety and depression. We documented that this is a long-standing condition that has required antidepressant medication and psychotherapeutic treatment in the past.
Just as importantly, we demonstrated that his anxiety and depression has led to severe physical symptoms as well, and that his overall condition would significantly worsen should his separation from his Mexican spouse continue OR if he should depart the U.S. and re-locate to Mexico to be with his spouse.
The U.S. citizen spouse has an elderly U.S. citizen mother who he visits regularly and takes care of as best he can. His mother has survived two bouts of cancer in the past and relies upon her son for assistance. His mother’s husband (the U.S. citizen spouse’s step-father) is also suffering from severe medical issues of his own and is wholly dependent on his wife to meet his daily and medical needs.
The U.S. citizen spouse has an elderly U.S. citizen father who suffers from a rare and serious immune system disorder. The U.S. citizen spouse visits his father as often as he can and feels a strong obligation to be by his side and care for him as best he can.
The financial burden of maintaining a home in the U.S., visiting and providing care for both his parents, AND spending what time remains with his spouse in Mexico, has caused the U.S. citizen spouse severe financial stress.
The financial stress includes thousands of dollars of debt. We documented that loss of employment by the U.S. citizen spouse due to deterioration of his compromised psychological and physical state, or relocation to Mexico, would both lead financial disaster.

As a result of the I-601 Waiver prepared and submitted by our office, the waiver application was approved in less than 3 months after submission and this couple can soon be re-united inside the United States.

Tips for Arguing Financial Hardship in I-601 “Extreme Hardship” Waiver and I-601A Provisional Waiver Cases

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

The AILA National Benefits Center Committee recently provided tips on establishing that a U.S. citizen spouse would suffer financial hardship in an I-601A, provisional unlawful presence waiver case. It should be noted that these tips also generally apply when arguing financial hardship in I-601 “extreme hardship” waiver cases.

Demonstrating that a U.S. citizen (USC) spouse would suffer financial hardship can help support a provisional unlawful presence waiver application (Form I-601A). The applicant must show that the USC spouse will not have the income to support him/herself or close family members as a result of the applicant’s departure from the U.S. or if the USC were to accompany the applicant to his or her home country.

It is critical that the applicant provide clear documentary evidence to substantiate a claim of extreme financial hardship.

Below are recommendations on how to present a claim of financial hardship:

Compare monthly income against expenses. Do not rely on USCIS to sort through the couple’s income and expenses for you. Itemize the monthly expenses and all sources of income and explain how the USC would not be able to cover all fixed expenses without the support of the applicant. Be sure to include supporting documentation, such as billing/credit card statements, receipts, paystubs, and tax returns.
Do not rely on recently acquired large expenses that could have been avoided. A reviewing officer may not be persuaded by the potential of a US Citizen (“USC”) losing their home if it was purchased recently and relied partially or wholly on the applicant’s U.S.-based income.
Show additional expenses related to raising children without the applicant’s care. It may not be sufficient to simply state that the applicant’s absence would result in a burden to the USC because the USC would be solely responsible for childcare. Explain if and why alternatives such as a nanny, daycare, or after school care are either not available or are insufficient. Document why the USC cannot afford the expense of childcare alternatives and address why other family members cannot help with childcare. Also address why the children cannot go with the applicant to the foreign country if he or she is their primary caretaker. This is number crunching at its finest; you must closely weigh all sides to the financial argument.
Do not rely on expenses that are not considered “basic necessities.” USCIS officers may not be convinced if the household expenses include items such as cable television; dining out, hotels, vacations, private school tuition, high cell phone bills, electronics, gym memberships, etc.
Explain the additional financial burden to the USC to support two households. It may be helpful to show the extra financial burden that would result from helping to maintain a household for the immigrant abroad as well as a household for the family in the U.S. Document the typical expenses the applicant would have in the foreign country (rent, utilities, transportation, etc.) and explain why family members in the home country would not be able to house the applicant. Also explain why the applicant would be unable to support him/herself, for example a lack of employment opportunities, lack of skills or education, etc.
Address why the USC would be unable to find work abroad. Though the USC spouse will of course have to give up his or her job if forced to relocate to the applicant’s home country, it might not be viewed as “extreme” hardship if the USC could find work in another field. Discuss the challenges the USC may face finding work abroad given language barriers, physical limitations, and financial needs and provide evidence to support your claim. For example, if the USC is a mechanical engineer who suffers from severe back problems, an argument could be made that she will have difficulty finding work because she does not have the language skills to use the necessary technical words and is unable to perform physical labor because of her back problems. This would need to be supported by medical records and recent job postings in the foreign country that describe the necessary skills for the position.
Review all receipts and financial records before filing. Carefully analyze all supporting documentation prior to filing. It is very difficult to respond to a Request for Evidence that points to documents that undermine your arguments.

I provide all of my I-601, I-601A, I-212, and 212(d)(3) waiver clients with extremely detailed Waiver Worksheets customized to their particular case type. The Waiver Worksheets contain a comprehensive list of questions for my clients to answer. It also contains a full checklist of supporting documents I recommend they gather to be used in support of their waiver application.

This process helps me identify all of the relevant hardship and persuasive factors to be discussed in their waiver, including a mathematical calculation of financial hardships and the impact separation (or relocation) caused by inadmissibility would have upon the qualifying relative and his/her immediate family.

As the above tips show, it is crucial that each and every hardship be analyzed in minute detail and that the impact on extreme hardship discussed in an organized, methodical, and comprehensive manner.

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.

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.

« Previous Page