Waiver Approvals - Page 3 of 9 - Smart Immigration Lawyer

Peruvian Wife Approved for I-601 “Unlawful Presence” Waiver Based on Extreme Hardship

July 11, 2016 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

We recently received approval of the I-601 “Extreme Hardship” Waiver for the Peruvian wife of a U.S. citizen 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 before departing the U.S. for her home country of Peru.

That section of the INA 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.

We prepared the I-601 waiver 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.

In order to secure approval of this I-601 “unlawful presence” waiver, we prepared a comprehensive 30-page legal memorandum (the I-601 “waiver letter”) that includes in-depth discussion of waiver case law that supports approval of our client’s case.

As we do with all of our waiver cases, we initially provided a Waiver Worksheet to our clients which contains a thorough list of questions for our clients answer and return to us. The answers provided by our clients help us identify the most important hardship and discretionary factors to be presented to the USCIS in our waiver package.

Our Waiver Worksheet also contains a checklist of suggested documents for our clients to gather. The questions on our Waiver Worksheet and the checklist of supporting documents is regularly updated and reflects our knowledge of the best ways to secure approval of I-601, I-212, and 212(d)(3) waivers. Our knowledge in the specialized field of immigration waivers for grounds of inadmissibility has been earned through over 12 years of successfully obtaining waiver approvals on behalf of our clients located throughout the world.

In this case, we also performed detailed country conditions research to demonstrate that the U.S. citizen husband would suffer a variety of hardships if he is forced to move to Peru to reside with his wife. We cited respected sources and journals such as Peru Economic Outlook; The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom; The World Bank Group; and the United States Department of State – Bureau of Consular Officers, to establish the financial, medical, and physical hardships and risks the U.S. citizen husband and his wife would be subject toif they were forced to reside in Peru due to the applicant’s inadmissibility. We particularly stressed the physical dangers inherent in residing long-term in Peru since the Peruvian wife has already been the victim of kidnapping.

Other special factors presented that supported approval of this I-601 waiver includes:

The U.S. citizen husband has joint-custody over a son who resides in the United States. He makes regularl child support payments and maintains a close relationship with his child. Re-location to Peru would endanger our client’s ability to make child support payments and effectively sever the father-son relationship for the severe detriment of both parties.
The U.S. citizen husband carries significant financial debt, recently lost his job, and suffers from medical conditions that prevent him from continuing with the physical labor inherent in his chosen occupation. He requires his wife’s daily support and financial assistance in the United States so that he can transition to a different career given his vulnerable physical condition.
The U.S. citizen husband is suffering crippling levels of anxiety during his wife’s absence from the United States. His wife’s kidnapping (which occurred several years ago when she last resided in Peru) makes him especially worried for her safety.

As a result of the I-601 “unlawful presence” waiver package we prepared on behalf of our clients, this waiver application was approved by the USCIS. The Peruvian wife can now lawfully residence inside the United States as a U.S. lawful permanent resident, and apply for naturalization to U.S. citizenship in about 3 years.

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

July 8, 2016 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for an Indian client in a same sex marriage who is subject to a life-time bar for fraud/misrepresentation under INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) states:

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.

Our client entered the U.S. lawfully on a valid non-immigrant visa and has remained in the United States for over 17 years. During his stay in the U.S., he married a U.S. citizen and applied for Adjustment of Status to permanent residence. He inadvertently failed to disclose a prior marriage he entered into for a short period of time in his Adjustment of Status package. He was consequently charged with fraud/misrepresentation pursuant to INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). He subsequently divorced his spouse, met and married his current same-sex spouse, and applied again for Adjustment of Status.

”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.

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

We prepared a comprehensive I-601 waiver application including a 34 page legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of our clients’ lives met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship.” We also thoroughly discussed and presented evidence of the U.S. citizen spouse’s unique background which made him particularly vulnerable to medical and psychological hardship. This includes the suicide of his father; the drug addiction of his brother; rejection by his family of his sexual orientation; as well as the psychological breakdown these events triggered and that he has suffered from throughout his adult life.

This case was also challenging because the waiver applicant was previously married to members of the opposite sex in the past. We went beyond the legal standard of extreme hardship to prove the validity and genuine nature of this same sex marriage, and the vital and loving role each spouse plays in ensuring the other’s welfare and well-being.

The supporting documents submitted as part of this I-601 waiver application included:

Medical history and diagnosis of the U.S. citizen spouse, including the possibility of a life-threatening medical crisis in the future
Psycho-social evaluation of the U.S. citizen spouse which confirms his Dysthymic Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder
Proof of significant financial debt owed by the household and the minimal income earned by the U.S. citizen spouse before meeting and marrying his current spouse
Proof of academic achievement and professional accomplishments of the Indian spouse, demonstrating his good moral character and his history of contribution to the economy of the United States
Detailed break-down of the family’s household income, expenses and debt/liabilities
Proof of financial support provided by the married couple to the elderly mother of the Indian spouse (a U.S. lawful permanent resident), who financially relies on the couple for all of her basic needs
Detailed country conditions of India, particularly as it relates to income, job opportunities, medical care, mental health treatment, stigma against homosexuality, and its non-recognition of same sex marriages.
Letters of good moral character and rehabilitation for the Indian spouse

As a result of our efforts, our client was approved for the I-601 Waiver and consequently, this same-sex couple will be able to live together lawfully in the United States and provide support to an elderly mother in need.

I-601A Provisional Waiver Approved for Nicaraguan Based on Psychological & Financial Hardships

April 27, 2016 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office received approval of the I-601A Provisional Waiver for a Nicaraguan applicant married to a U.S. citizen wife. As part of the Provisional Waiver process, we first provided our clients with a detailed letter going over every step of the immigrant visa process (including a checklist of supporting documents to gather and return to our office). We then expeditiously prepared the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative and filed it with the USCIS on behalf of our clients.

The I-130 Petition for Alien Relative was approved by the USCIS approximately 5 months after submission by our office. About 1 month after USCIS approval of the I-130 Petition, the National Visa Center received the approved immigrant visa case from the USCIS and issued its Immigrant Visa and Affidavit of Support fee bills. After payment of the Immigrant Visa fee by the applicant, our office submitted the I-601 Provisional Waiver application package which included: a complete set of USCIS forms requesting consideration for the I-601A Provisional Waiver; a 31 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.

Approval of the I-601 Provisional Waiver application was received just 4 months after submission by our office.

The provisional unlawful presence waiver process allows immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (spouses, children, or parents) who are currently residing in the United States to apply for a provisional waiver while in the United States, provided they meet all eligibility requirements outlined in 8 CFR 212.7(e) and warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.

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

Be 17 years of age or older.
Be an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen (not a preference category immigrant who has a visa available). An immediate relative is an individual who is the spouse, child or parent of a U.S. citizen.
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 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).

In this case, the applicant is a Nicaraguan national who entered the United States without inspection to earn money and support his mother back in his home country. The favorable factors of this case includes some of the following:

The Nicaraguan husband has extensive familial ties in the United States including his daughter, his father, his step-mother, his paternal grandmother, his uncles, and several nephews and nieces, all of whom reside legally in the U.S.
The U.S. citizen wife is responsible for the daily living and medical needs of her ill mother, who suffers from severe hearing loss and has a long history of mental illness. She also assists her mother financially as best she can.
The married couple have a significant amount of debt and the Nicaraguan husband’s monthly income constitutes over 50% of the family’s total monthly income. Without the money the husband earns, the U.S. citizen wife would default on her mortgage, student loans, and credit card debt, as well as on the secured loans on their car and house.
The U.S. citizen wife has a history of serious illness that required surgery in the past. She needs regular check-ups as her illness may return.
The Nicaraguan husband has no criminal record, volunteers at his local church, and has a history of productive employment in the U.S.
The psychological state of the U.S. citizen wife is fragile and she risks serious mental decompensation and psychotic symptoms should she be separated from husband.
The married couple have an infant daughter who they raise together who would also be impacted emotionally by re-location or separation from her father.
Re-location of the family to Nicaragua would place the U.S. citizen wife (and their daughter) at risk of psychological distress, financial collapse, and victimization to crime. It would seroiusly endanger the well-being and lives of three U.S. citizens.

It should be noted that the way extreme hardships are presented, discussed, and proven often “make or break” an I-601A Provisional Waiver Application. Extreme hardships should be highlighted and elaborated upon in a realistic and credible manner. Every hardship should also be shown to exist and possibly grow worse in two scenarios: if the qualifying relative is separated from the applicant and if the qualifying relative has to re-locate to another country in order to be with the applicant. Every hardship statement made should be proven with objective evidence that is included in a comprehensive collection of Exhibits.

As a result of the comprehensive package we prepared and submitted on behalf of the Applicant, this I-601A Provisional Waiver application was approved.

Client Approval: I-601 “Extreme Hardship” Waiver Approved for Romanian Client Subject to 10 Year Unlawful Presence Bar & Fraud/Misrepresentation

April 18, 2016 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 Romanian client who is subject to the 10 year unlawful presence bar under INA Section 212(a)(9)(B)(II) and a life-time bar for fraud/misrepresentation under INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

INA Section 212(a)(9)(B)(II) states:

Any alien who 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.

INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) states:

Our client entered the U.S. lawfully on a valid non-immigrant visa and overstayed his authorized period of stay by over 1 year before voluntarily departing back to his home country of Romania. During his stay inside the United States, he met and married his U.S. citizen wife. He eventually re-located to the United Kingdom, where his U.S. citizen wife joined him due to his inadmissibility to the U.S.. The couple gave birth to a U.S. citizen child who resides with them in London. The couple contacted my office after the Romanian husband was denied at his immigrant visa interview at the U.S. embassy in London due to being subject to the 10 year unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility and life-time bar fraud/misrepresentation.

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.

We prepared a comprehensive I-601 waiver application including a 29 page legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of our clients’ lives met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship.” We also thoroughly discussed and presented evidence of the U.S. citizen wife’s mother’s medical condition, as well as the precarious physical state of the U.S. citizen wife’s grandparents. The condition of the U.S. citizen wife’s mother and grand-parents were carefully presented to demonstrate their intimate link and relevance to the psychological hardship being faced by the qualifying relative (the U.S. citizen wife).

This case was also challenging because the U.S. citizen wife and her Romanian husband were residing in London, United Kingdom, together with their child who was born outside the U.S. We had to overcome the presumption that a family already residing abroad in a major metropolis such as London has adjusted to life abroad already and is not suffering extreme hardship. However, due to our experience handling similar cases over the past 12+ years, we anticipated this issue and presented an array of financial, psychological, and other hardship evidence to overcome such a presumption.

The supporting documents submitted as part of this I-601 waiver application included:

Personal affidavits from the U.S. citizen wife’s parents and grand-parents affirming the hardships factors presented in this I-601 waiver
Psycho-social evaluation of the U.S. citizen wife which confirms a substantial risk for psychiatric decompensation, and, potentially, an increased risk for suicide due to the immigration consequences of her Romanian husband’s inadmissibility
A specific discussion of Attachment theory (based on the idea that the bond between an infant and his or her primary caregiver is the crucial and primary influence infant development).
We often cite credible studies and reports from a variety of fields to support our I-601 and I-212 waiver applications. In this case, we referenced a World Health Organization’s study on attachment and early childhood development, which states that loss of a primary caregiver can substantially harm a young child’s psychological and emotional development.
Medical records of the U.S. citizen’s wife’s mother
Medical records of the U.S. citizen wife’s grand-parents.
Detailed break-down of the family’s household income, expenses and debt/liabilities
Detailed country conditions of Romania, particularly as it relates to income, job opportunities, and health care
Letters of good moral character and rehabilitation for the Romanian husband

As a result of our efforts, our client was approved for the I-601 Waiver and consequently, this family of mother, father, and son will be able to live in the United States and provide support to close U.S. citizen relatives who are in need.

Client Approval: I-601 Waiver Approved in 1.5 Months for Membership in Communist Party

April 15, 2016 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

We recently obtained approval for the I-601 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for a Chinese national deemed inadmissible pursuant to INA Section 212(a)(3)(D). Our client is the spouse of a U.S. citizen who was found inadmissible at her I-485 adjustment of status interview due to prior membership in the Chinese Community Party.

Our office was contacted by the client due to our extensive experience handling I-601 waiver cases, including obtaining waiver approvals for those deemed inadmissible due to membership in a communist party pursuant to INA Section 212(a)(3)(D).

INA Section 212(a)(3)(D) deems inadmissible any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Community or any other totalitarian party, domestic, or foreign:

(i) In general. Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.

Three exceptions apply:

INA Section 212 (a)(D)(ii) Exception for involuntary membership. – Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that the membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or is or was solely when under 16 years of age, by operation of law, or for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and whether necessary for such purposes.

INA Section 212 (a)(D)(iii) Exception for past membership. – Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that-

(I) the membership or affiliation terminated at least-

(aa) 2 years before the date of such application, or

(bb) 5 years before the date of such application, in the case of an alien whose membership or affiliation was with the party controlling the government of a foreign state that is a totalitarian dictatorship as of such date, and

(II) the alien is not a threat to the security of the United States.

INA Section 212 (a)(D)(iv) Exception for close family members. – The Attorney General may, in the Attorney General’s discretion, waive the application of clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the parent, spouse, son, daughter, brother, or sister of a citizen of the United States or a spouse, son, or daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest if the immigrant is not a threat to the security of the United States.

There is also a judicially created exception that states that an alien is admissible if his or her membership is “not meaningful.” The U.S. Supreme Court elaborates that membership is “not meaningful” if the alien lacks “commitment to the political and ideological convictions of communism.” Rowoldt v. Perfetto, 355 U.S. 115 (1957).

As we do with all of our waiver cases in which more than one exception or waiver applies, we presented evidence that our client meets the legal standard for every relevant and applicable exception and waiver. While this is significantly more work for us and not standard practice for some attorneys, we always do our utmost to maximize the probability of approval for our clients at no additional cost.

Specifically, we presented compelling evidence that our client’s membership in the Chinese Community Party was involuntary and “not meaningful.” We discussed how our client held no leadership positions; never attended a Chinese Communist Party meeting; neither advocated for nor endorsed any part of the Chinese Communist Party ideology; and at no time in her life participated in activities promoting Chinese Communist Party principles or advocating against US interests.

We also presented evidence that our client agreed to join the Chinese Community Party due to the scholarship and post-graduate job opportunities it might offer. We then cited objective academic research that found that membership in the Communist Party had a significant impact on increasing upward mobility in employment, and on decreasing the risk of downward mobility or discharge. According to the research we cited, overall, Party Membership accounted for a swing of 30% in the likelihood of a party member experiencing upward or downward mobility, compared to a non-party member (with the non-party member bearing the greater risk of negative employment outcome).

We engaged in an in-depth discussion of how the admission of our client serves the humanitarian purposes of the United States government; promotes the principle of family unity with her U.S. citizen husband; and that it is in the public interest of the United States to allow our client to be admitted for U.S. lawful permanent residence based on her academic background and professional contributions thus far.

This discussion also included a comprehensive illustration of the extreme hardships that our client’s U.S. citizen husband would suffer should he be separated from his wife (or alternatively, forced to return to China). Specifically, we cited the suspicion, monitoring, and possible censure the U.S. citizen is likely to experience should he re-locate back to China, due to politically sensitive topics he brought up at international conferences as part of his professional duties as an academic. We also conducted a financial analysis of the couple’s situation and demonstrated the dependency of the U.S. citizen husband on his wife’s substantial legal income.

Based on our expedited preparation of the waiver and filing, the I-601 waiver was approved within 1.5 month of submission to the USCIS. Our client will now be approved for lawful permanent residence and be able to continue her life in the United States with her husband.

I-601 Waiver for 10 Year Bar Approved While Both Husband and Wife Residing Abroad

April 7, 2016 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for an Indian client who was subject to the 10 year “unlawful presence” ground of inadmissibility under INA Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).

This is a somewhat unique case because both the husband and wife reside in Australia on temporary visas. This made preparation of an effective I-601 waiver more challenging, as we needed to demonstrate that the U.S. citizen wife is presently suffering extreme hardship even while living together with her husband abroad (in a developed country such as Australia).

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 …

Thus, 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.

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.

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.

In support of this couple’s I-601 waiver application, my office prepared a comprehensive 28-page legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of the couple’s situation met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship.” We also discussed and presented special evidence of the hardships the U.S. citizen wife would suffer in both Australia AND India (the home country of the foreign husband). While this significantly increased the scope of the waiver, we believe demonstrating all of the hardships present in every realistic scenario of re-location (in this case, living in Australia or India) makes for a far more effective and successful waiver application.

The factors discussed and proven with a comprehensive collection of exhibits in this I-601 “unlawful presence” waiver include:

Psychological evaluation by a mental health professional verifying the Dysthymic Disorder suffered by the U.S. citizen spouse, as well the critical emotional and psychological support provided by the foreign spouse (the waiver applicant)
The cultural, linguistic, religious, and psychological background of the U.S. citizen spouse, and the social stigma and prejudice she is likely to suffer should the couple re-locate to live long-term in India
A detailed breakdown of household expenses and debts, demonstrating the complete financial dependence of the U.S. citizen spouse on her husband’s earned income, and the significant amount of financial debt that they owe together as a married couple
The academic history and planned professional career of the U.S. citizen spouse, and her inability to engage in her intended profession in Australia or India
Evidence of the good moral character, rehabilitation, and academic and professional success of the foreign husband since he voluntarily decided to depart from the United States

As a result of our efforts, our client was approved for the I-601 waiver and this married couple can now return to the country to lawfully reside together in the U.S.

Client Approval: I-601 Waiver for Prostitution Approved for K-1 Fiancée at U.S. Embassy Bangkok

March 17, 2016 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

Our office received approval of the I-601 Waiver (Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility) for the Thai fiancée of a U.S. citizen that we expeditiously prepared and submitted on behalf of the couple.

The Thai fiancée was found inadmissible to the United States after being charged with engaging in prostitution during her K-1 fiancée visa consular interview (despite not having any such criminal conviction on her formal record). The U.S. embassy in Bangkok, Thailand is well-known for engaging in rigorous consular interviews – conducting both procedural (checking a computerized database) and investigative checks on its applicants, and vigorously charging applicants with inadmissibility if they suspect certain types of conduct.

The U.S. citizen fiancée contacted my office after his Thai fiancée was charged with having engaged in prostitution in the past and deemed inadmissible to the United States pursuant to INA Section 212(a)(2)(D).

Section 212(a)(2)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states:

(D) Prostitution and commercialized vice.-Any alien who-

(i) is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,

(ii) directly or indirectly procures or attempts to procure, or (within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status) procured or attempted to procure or to import, prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or receives or (within such 10- year period) received, in whole or in part, the proceeds of prostitution, or

(iii) is coming to the United States to engage in any other unlawful commercialized vice, whether or not related to prostitution, is inadmissible.

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

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

The Attorney General may 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 this removal from the United States would result in extreme hardship to his United States citizen or lawful resident parent, spouse, son, or daughter.

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, 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565-66 (BIA 1999), the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) provided a list of factors it deemed relevant in determining whether an alien has established extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. The factors include the presence of a lawful permanent resident or United States citizen spouse or parent in this country; the qualifying relative’s family ties outside the United States; the conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties in such countries; the financial impact of departure from this country; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.

The Board of Immigration Appeals has also made it clear that although hardships may not be extreme when considered abstractly or individually, “relevant 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.”

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

As an example, the Board of Immigration Appeals has found family separation, a common result of inadmissibility or removal, can also be the most important single hardship factor in considering hardship in the aggregate. See Salcido-Salcido, 138 F.3d at 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).

In support of my client’s I-601 waiver, I prepared a comprehensive legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of my clients’ situation met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship”; “rehabilitation” of the K-1 fiancée; and that the K-1 fianceé admission would “not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the U.S.”

In other words, as with all of our waiver cases, we went above and beyond the work that many law firms would engage in by demonstrating that our client met the legal standard of BOTH INA 212(a)(2)(D)(i)-(ii) and INA 212(h)(1)(B). This brief was accompanied by supporting exhibits that provided credible proof of every vital and relevant statement made in the legal brief.

The positive factors in this case included:

Psychological disorders suffered by the U.S. citizen fiancé which includes Dysthymic Disorder and Bipolar Depression, both of which were being aggravated by the prolonged separation of the couple.
Various physical ailments and medical conditions suffered by the U.S. citizen fiancé.
Various physical ailments and medical conditions suffered by the U.S. citizen fiancé’s father, who relies upon his son to oversee his medical care. The U.S. citizen fiancé is also expected to take over day-to-day care of his father in the future when his father’s wife is no longer able to carry out these duties due to her own age and health status.
Various physical ailments and a serious psychological disorder suffered by the U.S. citizen fiancé’s brother. The U.S. citizen fiancé coordinates the medical care of his brother and visits him at the facility where he is hospitalized several times a week.
The role of the U.S. citizen fiancé in caring for indigent and low-income individuals through his professional work. We presented and discussed the irreparable negative impact on the local community should the U.S. citizen fiancé be forced to depart from the U.S. in order to live with his beloved fiancée abroad in Thailand.
Country conditions of Thailand including the inability of the U.S. citizen fiancé to obtain proper psychological care for himself in Thailand; his inability to speak the local language; and his inability to practice his specialized profession there due to language-based licensing requirements.
Evidence of rehabilitation of the Thai fiancée including a letter of good moral character from the local chief of police; her reformed life as a business owner who continues to supports her family financially; her complete honesty in admitting to her past misconduct during her K-1 visa consular interview; and the reason for her past misconduct (which was to financially support her impoverished mother and siblings).

Although extreme hardship is only considered when suffered by the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident parent, spouse, son, or daughter of the foreign applicant under INA 212(h)(1)(B), it is my experience that extreme hardship suffered by any close relative of the qualifying relative should be thoroughly discussed. In this case, the extreme hardships to be suffered by the U.S. citizen’s father and U.S. brother in the event of my client’s departure from the U.S., would in turn impact the U.S. citizen himself and aggravate all of the conditions he presently suffers from. This was carefully outlined in detail in our memorandum. This connection can be made when the qualifying relative plays an integral role in taking care of the close relative, either in daily care, financial support, and/or medical oversight.

As a result of the I-601 “prostitution waiver expeditiously prepared and submitted by my office within 2 weeks of my client having first contacted our office, the I-601 waiver application was approved by the USCIS. The couple now happily reside together inside the U.S.

Waiver Approval: I-601 Waiver Approved for K-1 Fiancee Inadmissible for Fraud – Misrepresentation

March 1, 2016 By Michael Cho Immigration Lawyer Leave a Comment

We recently obtained approval of the I-601 “Extreme Hardship” Waiver and K-1 Fiancée Visa for a client from Africa found inadmissible for having attempted to procure an immigration benefit in the United States by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact under INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

The K-1 fiancée was previously married to a spouse who had won the diversity visa lottery. She attempted to obtain U.S. permanent residence together with her spouse, but was unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the consular officer that their marriage was genuine. Due to irregularities that occurred during this process, she was charged with fraud/misrepresentation and became banned for life from the U.S.

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 K-1 fiancée subsequently rekindled a friendship with a U.S. citizen who is a member of the U.S. Navy. They fell in love with one another and contacted my office to help represent them throughout the K-1 Fiancée Visa process.

I first provided the couple with a detailed letter going over the K-1 Fiancée Visa process from start to finish. This “start-up package” included client questionnaires and a checklist of supporting documents to gather and forward to my office.

After the initial USCIS petition was expeditiously prepared and filed by my office on behalf of our clients, I provided the couple with another detailed letter going over preparation guidelines and tips for the K-1 visa interview.

To prepare for the fraud/misrepresentation charge that we expected to be levied against the K-1 fiancée visa at her consular interview, I began preparation of the I-601 waiver package while the K-1 visa petition was still processing. This allowed my clients to save time by having the I-601 “extreme hardship” waiver ready to submit as soon as the consular interview was complete.

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).

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.

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

The favorable factors we presented and proved in this case to obtain approval of the I-601 Waiver includes the following:

The U.S. citizen fiancé is solely responsible for the day-to-day care and financial support of his mother, who suffered severe brain damage and relies upon her son for the necessities of life
The U.S. citizen fiancé lives with his mother and his younger brother. Due to his mother’s incapacity, the U.S. citizen fiancé is now responsible for providing food, housing, clothing, and emotional support to his younger brother as well.
The U.S. citizen fiancé does not earn enough through his work with the U.S. Navy to meet the expenses involved in caring for himself, his incapacitated mother, and his younger brother. He is falling deeper into debt. He needs his fiancée in the U.S. and working to provide a second income that will help meet the financial needs of this tight-knit family.
The U.S. citizen fiancé is at high risk of psychological decompensation due to the tremendous stress of caring for his disabled parent and younger brother. He also faces deployment abroad in 2016 with the U.S. Navy. This is putting extraordinary pressure on him as he needs his fiancée in the United States as soon as possible to help him psychologically cope and to assist in the care for his disabled mother and young brother. His fiancée’s presence in the U.S. and her day-to-day assistance will be especially vital during his deployment abroad with the U.S. Navy.

As a result of our efforts, our client was approved for the I-601 Waiver and K-1 Fiancée Visa. She can now enter the United States, marry her U.S. citizen fiancée, and subsequently apply for adjustment of status to permanent residence in the United States.

« Previous Page