Blog - Page 14 of 17 - Smart Immigration Lawyer

I-601 Waiver Approved – Client Review by Chris C.

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

All client testimonials are written by my former clients who you may request to contact and speak with, depending upon their personal schedules and preferences.

I was in need of a Waiver for a visa. I knew the process was going to be difficult , and one that would require and attorney to prepare the waiver. i consulted several attorney . Of the 5 offices i called Mr Cho was the only Attorney that answered his own phone! I had a few offices that flatly told me that they thought my case was to difficult and would not even consider taking the case (this was after i spoke to their secretary or assistant!!). Mr Cho was honest but also more optimistic concerning my chances. Mr Cho took my case and won the visa for my wife. Mr Cho guided me through out the waiver process and did not hesitate to answer my phone calls. I am very thankful for Attorney Cho. Mr Cho gave me personal service, either via email or on the phone. Mr Cho was accessible night or day (even emails sent by me at night were answered that evening). Thanks for the good service.!!!!! My wife has her Green Card.

By Chris C. from Southfield, Michigan

601 Waiver Legal News: 212(h) Waiver Approved for Marijuana Conviction

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

The applicant in this case is a citizen of Zimbabwe who was found inadmissible to the United States due to a conviction in 1998 for possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana. He also had a theft conviction in 1993, a trespass conviction from 1996, a conducting business without occupational license in 1997, and driving without a license twice in 1996.

He married his U.S. citizen spouse in 1998, had a child together with her in 2000. After his marriage to his wife, he was never convicted of another crime. He worked successfully as an electrician, contributing towards the household expenses including property payments and automobile leases. He attended night school in computer science, paid IRS taxes together with his wife, and shares a strong and close bond with his child. The applicant’s spouse submitted country conditions for Zimbabwe, stating that it would be dangerous for her and their child to move to Zimbabwe. She also submitted medical information for her child, citing the lack of adequate medical care in Zimbabwe if they were forced to move there. She also stated that she would suffer financial hardship without the money contributed by her husband.

Section 212(h) of the Immigration & Nationality Act states that:

The Attorney General [Secretary of Homeland Security) may, in his discretion, waive the application of subparagraph (A)(i)(I), (B), . .. of subsection (a)(2) and subparagraph (A)(i)(II) of such subsection insofar as it relates to a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana if – (1) (A) in the case of any immigrant it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that:

(i) the alien is inadmissible only under subparagraph (D)(i) or (D)(ii) of such subsection or the activities for which the alien is inadmissible occurred more than 15 years before the date of the alien’s application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status.

(ii) the admission to the United States of such alien would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the United States,. and

(iii) the alien has been rehabilitated; or

(B) in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General [Secretary] that the alien’s denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to the United States citizen.

The AAO did not rule on extreme hardship. However, it did find that the applicant demonstrated rehabilitation and that his admission to the United States would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the United States.

The important take-away from this case is the turning point in the applicant’s life (his marriage to his wife and birth of their child), after which he changed his life and was never again convicted of any crimes. He became a devoted husband and father, worked as an electrician to support his family, went to school in the evening to better himself, paid his taxes, and became an ethical and contributing member of society. The fact that all of his convictions occurred over 15 years ago was also a favorable factor in this case.

Thus, it is often useful and persuasive to show a “turning point” in an applicant’s life. Every applicant claim rehabilitation from past bad behavior in their waiver applications. I always try to find an important event in my client’s life that made him realize the full consequences of his past mistakes. I highlight that life-changing event, and then demonstrate the changes that occurred as a result of it.

Fiance Visa with IMBRA Waiver Approved

August 20, 2013 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office received approval for a K-1 fiance visa petition that I prepared and filed on behalf of a U.S. citizen and his South Korean fiance. I prepared and submitted the initial I-129F Petition for Alien Fiance together with a comprehensive array of supporting documents including proof of U.S. citizenship of the petitioner; affidavits of intent to marry; explanation of how the couple met and how the relationship has developed over time; proof of the couple having met in person within the last 2 years; and evidence of continued relationship.

The U.S. citizen had previously filed a K-1 fiance visa petition on behalf of a different person. That relationship ended due to personal differences. However, the International Marriage Broker Regulations Act requires a general waiver to be filed in the following circumstances:

1. When the U.S. citizen filed K-1 fiancee visa petitions for two or more beneficiaries or

2. When the U.S. citizen previously had a K-1 fiance visa petition approved, and less than 2 years have passed since the filing date of the previously approved petition.

Consequently, I also prepared a general waiver pursuant to Section 832 of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, Subtitle D of Title VIII (Sec.831-834) of United States Public Law 109-162. The waiver consisted of a persuasive brief presenting the background of the U.S. citizen; an explanation of why the previous relationship ended before issuance of the K-1 fiance visa; a summary of the genuine and loving nature of the current relationship; re-iteration of their firm intent to marry within 90 days of the fiance’s entry into the United States; and documents to support the statements made in the waiver.

Both the I-129F Petition for Alien Fiance and general IMBRA waiver were approved by the USCIS. I then prepared all of the consular forms required by the Dept. of State. I also helped the clients gather the supporting documentation required for consular processing and conducted an interview prep via telephone to go over the types of questions that may be asked.

As a result of our concerted effort, the fiance was approved for the K-1 visa at the U.S. embassy in Seoul. This couple can now begin a life together in the U.S. as husband and wife in the near future.

601 Waiver Legal News: Balancing of the Equities and Adverse Matters in I-601 Waivers

August 18, 2013 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

This case demonstrates the importance of balancing the need for conciseness in a I-601 waiver case (you do not want to overwhelm the USCIS officer with too much documentation) with presenting as many favorable factors from your lives as possible.

The applicant in this case is a citizen of Mexico who had an approved I-130 Petition for Immediate Relative filed by her lawful permanent resident husband and son. She previously obtained a lawful permanent residence card using the identity of her sister-in-law and procured admission into the U.S. on six separate occasions.

She was deemed inadmissible to the U.S. based on Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which provides, in relevant part:

(i) In general.- 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.

She applied for the I-601 waiver pursuant to Section 212(i) of the INA which provides, in relevant part:

(1) The Attorney General [now the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary)] may, in the discretion of the [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 [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.

The AAO found that the lawful permanent spouse of the applicant in this case would suffer extreme hardship. It is notable that the AAO found extreme hardship despite the LPR spouse having no particular medical condition of his own aside from being elderly.

The AAO also cited Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296, 301 (BIA 1996) in finding that extreme hardship is but one favorable discretionary factor to be considered. The AAO went on to state:

For waivers of inadmissibility, the burden is on the applicant to establish that a grant of a waiver of inadmissibility is warranted in the exercise of discretion. The adverse factors evidencing an alien’s undesirability as a permanent resident must be balanced with the social and humane considerations presented on his behalf to determine whether the grant of relief in the exercise of discretion appears to be in the best interests of this country.

The factors adverse to the applicant include:

the nature and underlying circumstances of the exclusion ground at issue
the presence of additional significant violations of this country’s immigration laws
the existence of a criminal record and, if so, its nature, recency and seriousness, and
the presence of other evidence indicative of an alien’s bad character or undesirability as a permanent resident of this country

The favorable considerations include:

family ties in the United States
residence of long duration in this country (particularly where the alien began his residency at a young age)
evidence of hardship to the alien and his family if he is excluded and deported
service in this country’s Armed Forces
a history of stable employment
the existence of property or business ties
evidence of value and service to the community
evidence of genuine rehabilitation if a criminal record exists, and
other evidence attesting to the alien’s good character (e.g., affidavits from family, friends, and responsible community representatives)

Thus, in all I-601 waiver cases, the record as a whole is reviewed and a “balancing of the equities and adverse matters” is conducted to determine whether discretion should be favorably exercised.

In this case, the applicant and her LPR husband have been married for 33 years. The LPR husband has always cared for the applicant, who suffers from several medical conditions that have required surgeries and on-going treatment. These conditions include Basal Cell Carcinoma, Rectal Carcinoid Tumors, Seizure Disorder, Dyslipidemia, Hypothyroidism, and has undergone reconstruction and flap replacement of her right cheek. She is permanently unable to drive due to epilepsy.

The lawful permanent resident husband was the sole financial provider for the family. He demonstrated that he could not afford to pay for the applicant’s medical care in Mexico nor the travel costs to take care of her there. He also feared for his wife’s well-being given the lack of medical care in remote areas of Mexico as well as high-rates of violence throughout the country. He could not live in Mexico given his extensive family ties in the U.S. as well as his advanced age.

The applicant helps care for her grandchildren while her daughter works. Her daughter would have to quit her job without the applicant’s babysitting since she cannot afford child care. The applicant has numerous family ties to the U.S., has always paid taxes, and has no criminal record.

Given the situation described above, and despite the LPR husband having no notable medical condition of his own, extreme hardship was still found and the I-601 waiver approved.

601 Waiver Legal News: AAO Overturns USCIS Decision on 601 Waiver

August 15, 2013 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

I personally try to review every 601, 601A, and 212 waiver case that is made available, as they provide a valuable insight into the discretionary standards applied in deciding immigration waiver applications.

This case is instructive in the persuasive importance of medical hardship when waiver cases are adjudicated. It involves a citizen of the Philippines who was found inadmissible to the U.S. under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The applicant is the spouse of a U.S. citizen who previously entered the United States using a fraudulent passport.

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.

The applicant applied for a 601 waiver pursuant to Section 212(i) of the INA which provides: (1) The [Secretary] may, in the discretion of the [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 [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.

The USCIS Field Director concluded that the applicant had failed to demonstrate extreme hardship to her qualifying spouse and denied the application. The AAO overturned the decision on appeal and granted the waiver.

The AAO stated 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).

The AAO also cited Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, in which the Board of Immigration Appeals (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 U.S. 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 following factors in this case were deemed persuasive in granting the 601 waiver:

The applicant suffered from reproductive health issues since 2000
The applicant has resided for a long period of time in the U.S. and has a husband and family members who are U.S. citizens
A letter from her doctor and medical records showed that she has been attempting to have a child with her U.S. citizen husband through in vitro fertilization since 2006.
The letter from her doctor stated that she must avoid stress and remain in the U.S. for fertility treatments if she wishes to ever have a child in the future.
She has undergone surgeries due to her reproductive health issue, and takes medication for depression and anxiety.
Bank statements, mortgage payments, and utility bills showed that the U.S. citizen husband could not afford fertility treatments for his wife if she were forced to live in the Philippines.
They demonstrated that the applicant moving to the Philippines would prevent the couple from having the child they so desperately wanted, which would in turn cause tremendous emotional stress on the U.S. citizen husband
They demonstrated that the U.S. citizen husband could not afford to make mortgage payments on their family home or afford his other monthly payments without his wife’s financial contributions.
The U.S. citizen husband has significant family ties to the United States, including parents, sisters, nieces, aunts, and uncles.
The U.S. citizen husband has enjoyed long-term employment in the U.S.
The U.S. citizen husband provided medical documentation showing a severe allergic reaction he suffered during his last visit to the Philippines due to pollution

I-601A Provisional Waiver

August 10, 2013 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

None of my clients have yet been denied on the I-601A Provisional Waiver Applications that I prepared and filed on their behalf. However, the current trend based on I-601A provisional waiver applications filed by others nationally appears to be that the USCIS is denying I-601A waivers when it has “reason to believe” that the applicant may be found inadmissible by a Department of State or consular officer at the time of his/her immigrant visa interview for a reason other than unlawful presence.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association, of which I am a member, is currently working with the USCIS in an attempt to have I-601A provisional waivers adjudicated in a more flexible and meaningful manner.

Unfortunately, the USCIS seems to be denying I-601A provisional waivers in two common situations: when applicants have had encounters with criminal law enforcement authorities in the past that do NOT constitute grounds of inadmissibility under INA Section 212; and when applicants allegedly gave false names, biographic data, or other information to the INS or DHS authorities, where such false information was NOT given in an effort to procure a visa, other documentation, or admission in violation of INA Section 212(a)(6)(C).

My current recommendation as of 08/10/2013 is to be absolutely sure NONE of the situations described below apply to you before you submit your I-601A provisional waiver application. This means you never had any encounter whatsoever with criminal law enforcement authorities and never submitted any type of false information to the INS or DHS in the past. Should the USCIS adopt the more flexible and meaningful approach advocated by AILA, this blog and my clients will be updated.

Denials Based on Criminal Acts That Do Not Form the Basis for an Inadmissibility Determination

Numerous reports indicate that USCIS is relying on the “reason to believe” standard to deny applications involving any prior criminal issue, no matter how minor or how long ago the incident took place. AILA has also received reports of denials where the only offense involved a traffic citation or traffic violation.

Denials Based on Alleged Misrepresentations That Do Not Form the Basis for an Inadmissibility Determination

AILA has also received a number of examples of I-601A waiver applications that were denied based on an allegation that the applicant provided a false name or date of birth when apprehended at the border for attempting to enter without inspection. Though some of these denials contain limited information specific to the alleged incident (year, border station), most of them are formulaic, and none acknowledge evidence that might have been submitted to explain why the incident does not render the person inadmissible.

USCIS Needlessly Denies Provisional Waiver Applications Where a Meaningful Review of the Evidence Would Reveal No Inadmissibility Concerns Other Than Unlawful Presence

Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

It is well-established that a simple DUI, without more, is not a crime involving moral turpitude and therefore, does not render a person inadmissible. See Matter of Lopez-Meza, 22 I&N Dec. 1188, 1194 (BIA 1999); Murillo-Salmeron v. INS, 327 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2003). This position has been acknowledged and cited by the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office in several non-precedent decisions. Moreover, a conviction for an aggravated DUI (based on multiple simple DUIs) under a statute that does not require a culpable mental state is also not a crime involving moral turpitude. Matter of Torres Varela, 23 I&N Dec. 78, 82-86 (BIA 2001).

AILA has received numerous examples of provisional waiver denials where the only incident from the applicant’s past involved a simple DUI conviction. In many of these cases, the applicant acknowledged the incident on the I-601A form and submitted the record of conviction which revealed no aggravating factors. In at least one case, the conviction was ultimately dismissed and in most cases, the DUI occurred more than five years ago. However, despite well-documented efforts demonstrating that the conviction would not render the applicant inadmissible, these provisional waiver applications were denied.

The Petty Offense Exception

AILA has also received numerous denials involving minor offenses that would clearly fall under the “petty offense exception” for a single crime involving moral turpitude. An offense falls under the petty offense exception if (1) the crime was committed when the alien was under age 18, and the crime was committed (and the alien was released from confinement) more than five years before the date of the application; or (2) the maximum penalty possible for the crime did not exceed one year of imprisonment and if convicted, the alien was not sentenced to more than 6 months in prison.

Traffic Violations

Question 29 on Form I-601A seems to indicate that traffic violations are not considered when evaluating eligibility for a provisional waiver. Yet, AILA has received troubling reports of cases that have been denied where the only offense involved appears to be one or more traffic violations. Even if such violations could be considered relevant, they will almost always qualify for the petty offense exception.

Allegations of Providing a False Name or Date of Birth When Apprehended After Attempting to Enter without Inspection

AILA has also received many reports of denials based on a “reason to believe” the applicant is inadmissible under INA §212(a)(6)(C) for allegedly providing a false name or date of birth when the applicant was apprehended at the border for attempting to enter without inspection. While providing a false name in conjunction with the formal inspection and admission process may certainly raise concerns regarding admissibility (for example, presenting a false passport at a port of entry), in most circumstances, simply providing a false name after an arrest for attempting to enter without inspection does not support a finding of inadmissibility under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i) because it is not made in an attempt to “procure … a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States” or other benefit under the INA. Moreover, the Department of State takes the approach that misrepresentations regarding identity are material only if the alien is “inadmissible on the true facts or the misrepresentation tends to cut off a relevant line of inquiry which might have led to a proper finding of ineligibility.” Providing a false name or date of birth after arrest (in a “catch and release” or “voluntary return” situation) when it has already been determined that the individual is inadmissible is not, by definition “material.”

I-601 Extreme Hardship Waiver Approved

August 10, 2013 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer 1 Comment

Our office received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for a Mexican client who was subject to the 10 year unlawful presence bar under INA Section 212(a)(9)(B). She was also subject to the fraud/misrepresentation ground of inadmissibility under INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) due to the use of a false document to enter the United States.

I prepared and filed three separate I-130 immediate relative petitions and ultimately received approval for three immigrant visas: for the Mexican wife who required the I-601 waiver, and her two Mexican children who did not require unlawful presence waivers since they were both under the age of 18. Any period of time spent unlawfully in the U.S. while under the age of 18 does not count toward calculating unlawful presence under INA Section 212(a)(9)(B) [9 FAM 40.92 N 4.1].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In support of her I-601 waiver application, I prepared a comprehensive legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of her situation met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship.” I also discussed and presented evidence of her rehabilitation, good moral character, and overall dedication as a wife and mother who was integral to the daily care of her ill U.S. citizen husband (and his elderly mother). Since this was her second marriage to a U.S. citizen, I presented compelling evidence that both marriages were genuine when entered into as well as the reasons why her previous marriage ended in divorce. A table of exhibits also listed a variety of evidence in support of a showing of “extreme hardship” including:

Letter and medical records from the physician of the U.S. citizen husband’s mother, confirming her diabetes, hip surgery, frequent infections, low blood sugar, and overall precarious health

Affidavits attesting to the U.S. citizen husband’s daily care of his elderly mother with the assistance of his Mexican wife, including hand-feeding her meals on a regular basis

U.S. citizen husband being evaluated as 100% disabled for post-traumatic stress disorder by the Dept. of Veterans Affairs resulting from his tours of duty during the Vietnam War

Letter from a psychiatrist confirming long-term treatment of the U.S. citizen husband for post-traumatic stress disorder

War decorations awarded to the U.S. citizen husband during his service during the Vietnam War

As a result of our efforts, our client was approved for the I-601 and subsequently, received her lawful permanent residence together with her two children.

Cohabitating Partners and Other Household Members Eligible for B-2 Visas

August 3, 2013 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

B-2 Visa Classification for Cohabitating Partners, Extended Family Members, and Other Household Members Not Eligible for Derivative Status

B-2 classification is appropriate for people who are members of the household of someone in long-term non-immigrant status but who are not eligible for derivative status under that person’s visa classification. Such people may include cohabitating partners or elderly parents of temporary workers, students, diplomats posted to the U.S., etc.

If such individuals plan to stay in the U.S. for more than six months, they should specifically request a one-year stay at the time they apply for admission. If needed, they may thereafter apply for extensions of stay, in increments of up to six months, for the duration of the principal alien’s non-immigrant status in the U.S.

Examples of evidence of co‐habitation that may be sufficient include a joint bank account statement, shared lease or mortgage obligations, common driver’s license addresses, insurance documents, and, if applicable, a letter from the principal alien’s employer verifying the temporary nature of the assignment

Keep in mind however that the primary purpose of travel is controlling. Thus, if the primary purpose of the partner or family member is to accompany the principal alien, then the B-2 visa classification is appropriate. Therefore, the activity is consistent with B-2 status, as long as the accompanying partner does not intend to work. (If the latter, the accompanying partner will need a temporary work visa which permits such planned activity.)

In evaluating these cases, the consular officer will not focus on the absolute length of the stay per se; rather, they will focus on whether the stay has some finite limit. For example, the temporariness requirement would be met in a case where the cohabitating partner will accompany, and depart with, the “principal” alien on a two-year work assignment or a four-year degree program.

As in any B visa case, the accompanying partner must still establish that he/she has a residence abroad that the alien does not intend to abandon. In determining whether the individual can meet this burden, the consular officer will examine the B-2 applicant’s ties abroad and the likelihood that he/she would stay in the U.S. illegally after the “principal” alien departs.

In making this assessment, the consular officer will consider the applicant’s current circumstances and their prospects in their home country upon return, as well as the strength of their relationship with the “principal” alien and the “principal” alien’s own ties abroad. For example, an applicant who is part of a couple who have lived together for many years and who are both well-established with strong ties to their home country would normally be able to overcome 214(b)(“immigrant intent”). Conversely, a “partner” (boy/girlfriend) who only recently entered into a relationship with the principal and who has weak ties of his/her own may have greater difficulty demonstrating a residence abroad.

« Previous Page