Interim Decision -#1506 

Mawr= of SANGSTER 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-10198568 

Decided by Bard September 14, 1965 

While resnondent's deportation would result in economic detriment to her, 

such economic detriment, in the absence of other substantial equities, Is nut 

tantamount to "extreme hardship" within the meaning of section 244(a) (1), 

Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, since there is no evidence of 

record that she could not obtain suitable employment in Jamaica, her native 

country, or England, and it is due only to the Government's liberal student 

and trainee policy that she has been able to acquire the statutory continuous 

physical presence in this country for suspension of deportation. 

CRAROE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (2)1—Remained 

longer—nonimmigrant student. 

The trial attorney at the New York, New York Office of the Service appeals from the decision entered by the special inquiry officer on 

June 18, 1965, granting the respondent's application for suspension 

of deportation under section 244(a) (1) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act and directing that if Congress takes no action 

adverse to the order granting suspension of deportation, the proceedings be canceled, * * * and further ordering that in the event 

the Congress takes action reverse to the order granting suspension 

of deportation, these proceedings be reopened upon notice to the 

alien. The respondent, a 36-year-old married female, native and citizen of Jamaica, has had continuous residence in the United States 

since her admission at Miami, Florida on or about September 14, 

1954 as a. nonimmigrant student. Deportation proceedings were 

instituted against the respondent on January 18, 1965. The order to 

show cause among other things alleges that she was authorized to 

remain in the United Statei until December 31, 1964; that she has 

remained in the United States without authority since the latter 

date. A hearing in deportation proceedings was held at New York, 

309, 
Interim Decision *1506 

New York on March 3, 1965 at which time the respondent and counsel admitted the truth of the factual allegations set forth in the 

order to show cause and conceded deportability on the charge stated 

therein (pp. 2-3). The evidence of record clearly establishes that 

the respondent is subject to deportation under the provisions of section 241(a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, in that, 

after admission as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a) (15) of the 

Act, she remained in the United States for a longer time than 

permitted. ' 

The trial attorney by brief and the Service representative in oral 

argument on appeal urged that the order entered by the special' 

inquiry officer on June 18, 1965 granting the respondent's application 

for suspension of deportation under section 244(a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act be withdrawn and the respondent be 

accorded the privilege of voluntary departure. The Service representative argued the facts and circumstances in this case do not 

affirmatively establish that the respondent would suffer "extreme 

hardship" if compelled to depart from the United States for England or to Jamaica the country of her nativity. Counsel for the 

respondent urged that the order of the special inquiry officer granting the respondent's application for suspension of deportation be 

approved. Counsel asserted that the respondent should be allowed to 

remain in the United States and adjust her immigrant status to that 

of a permanent resident as provided in section 244(a) (1) of the Act. 

Counsel declared that the grant of suspension of deportation is justified because the respondent would suffer extreme hardship withiri the 

meaning of the statute if compelled to depart from the United States. 

On examination of the record, we find that the respondent was 

over 26 years old when she was admitted to the United States as a 

nonimmigrant student in September of 1954. Respondent testified 

that immediately after her admission to the United States she enrolled as a student at Fisk University; that she attended said university from September 1954 until she was graduated therefrom on 

January 28, 1959 at which time she was awarded a Bachelor of Arts 

Degree with a major in biology (p. 7 & Ex. 9). Respondent testified 

that after being graduated from Fisk University she received per-

., mission from the Immigration Service to take a course in laboratory 

-technology; that she registered at the Manhattan Medical and Dental 

Assistants' School in New York, New York and completed her course 

of study in the latter school in' March 1960 (p. 8 & Ex. 4). The 

respondent testified that after completing her course at the Manhattan Medical and Dental Assistants' School she obtained employment 

310 
Interim Decision #1506 

at the Maimonides Hospital in Brooklyn, New York; and that, she 

has been working at said hospital since May 1960 (pp.,8 & 9 and Mrs: 

3 & 8). The respondent testified that her father is a native and citizen of Janiaica, and that her motresi is a native of Jamaica presently 

.residing in England - (pp:8 ,- 9). 

The respondent's application requesting, that her deportation be 

suspended under section 244(a) of the Immigration and Nationality' 

Act was subscribed, sworn to and submitted for consideration at the 

New York, New York office of the Service on March 3, 1965. The 

respondent has been 'employed by the llahnonides Hospital from 

May iutio to the present time as a. laboratory technician at a salary of 

$94 per week (Ens. 2, 3 & 10). The respondent's assets, comprising 

of cash and personal property, are valued at $4700 (Ex. 2). When 

the respondent was asked in what manner she would suffer hardship 

if recjuired to leave the United States and return to her native country she replied that she had broken her ties with the people back 

home and that it would be difficult to adjust there since she has now 

adjusted to life in the United States (p. 10). The respondent testified that prior to her employment at the aforenamed hospital she 

was supported for the most part by her father,plus small earnings as 

a part-time employee at Fisk University (pp. 12-14). 

The respondent was married in a. civil ceremony to a lawful resident alien of the United States at New York, New York on December 14, 1964. The respondent testified her marriage has never been 

consummated; that she and her husband have never lived together 

since their marriage in December 1964. Respondent's husband in an 

affidavit subscribed and sworn to before an officer of the Service on 

May 6, 1965 deposed that he met the respondent approximately three 

months prior to their marriage on December 14, 1961. He stated his 

marriage had never been consummated and that he had never had 

sexual intercourse with his wife either prior or subsequent to the date 

the marriage ceremony was performed in December 1964. The 

respondent's husband. testified that he is not ready to accept the 

responsibility of a wife and family, that he contracted the aforementioned marriage for the privilege of determining whether he could 

become a husband and father. The testimony of this -witness indicates he is not ready to assume such a, role and he advised his wife, 

the respondent herein, during March. 1965 that it would be better for 

both of them if they were to have their marriage annulled. The 

respondent's husband declared that the respondent herein told him 

she would contact a lawyer to see what could be done; that he did not 

know at the time he executed the aforementioned affidavit whether or 

' 311 
Interim Decision #1506 

not his wife had instituted annulment proceedings. The respondent's 

testimony reveals that on June 17, 1960 she was granted an extension 

of temporary stay until July 1960 for the purpose of obtaining practical training at the Maimonides Hospital (p. 16 % Ex. 8). 

The respondent testified and the record shows that on July 19, 1960 

she filed an application to extend time of temporary stay and an 

application for permission to accept employment (Ex. 9). She testified she was never informed that this latter application for extension 

of time to take practical training was granted (p. 18). When the 

respondent was interviewed at the New York, New York office of the 

Service on July 95, 1062 regarding her nonimmigrant status (p. 18) 

she revealed she was a full-time employee of the Maimonides Hospital (pp. 18 & 19). The record establishes there was 'executed and 

filed on behalf of the respondent by the Maimonides Hospital a petition to accord the respondent quota immigrant status under section 

203(a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. She testified 

she did not leave the United States upon completion of her practical 

training because she wanted to remain in the United States (pp. 9 & 

10). The visa petition filed by the Maimonides Hospital to accord 

the respondent first preference status under section 203(a) (1) of the 

Immigration •and Nationality Act was denied by the Service on October 5, 1964 and counsel for the respondent was advised of this action 

on December 3, 1964 and at the same time the respondent was granted 

until December 31, 1964 within which to effect her voluntary departure from the United States (p. 28). 

The respondent testified that she could resume her teaching in the 

public schools of Jamaica if compelled to return to that country. 

When the respondent was asked if she could use the training she 

'received in the United States in the field of chemistry and laboratory 

technology if compelled to return to Jamaica she replied, "Yes" (p. 

24). She testified she has not yet instituted proceedings to have her 

marriage annulled (p. 25). The respondent has no close family ties 

or dependents living in the United States. It is conceded that she is 

a person of good moral character and has the necessary continuous 

physical presence in the United States. The respondent, because of 

the Government's liberal student and trainee policy has been able to 

acquire the necessary continuous physical presence in the United 

States to meet the requirements of the statute. 

Respondent has acquired an excellent education since her admission to the United States. Unquestionably she will be able to utilize 

the advanced education she has acquired in the United States in 

obtaining suitable and acceptable employment in Jamaica or Eng312 
Interim Decision *1506 

land. It has been leld. that "extreme hardship" is not a definable 

term of fixed and inflexible content or meaning. The elements .required to establish "extreme' hardship" are dependent upon the‘ facts 

and circuihstances peculiar to each case (Cf. Matter -of Etwarig,•nt. 

Dec. No. 1319, and Matter of Uy, Int. Dec. No 1464). •In the instant 

case, we are concerned with an alien -who has been in the United 

States since her admission thereto in September of 1954. She has no 

dependents living in this country. Her father is a native, citizen and 

resident of Jamaica, and her mother a native of Jamaica is presently 

residing in England. Concededly the respondent's deportation from. 

the United States would result in economic detriment to her. It is 

the considered opinion of this Board, however, that under the circumstances present in this particular case economic detriment in and 

of itself does not amount to "extreme hardship " There has been no 

showing that the respondent could not obtain employment in her 

native country or England. Factually she has testified that she could 

use to her advantage the training she acquired in the United States 

in the field of chemistry and laboratory technology. There are no 

substantial equities in this case except those arising from the economic factor and this factor, standing alone, is insufficient to support 

a finding of "extreme hardship" within the meaning of the statute.. 

There is not a scintilla of evidence present in this record showing 

that the respondent could not obtain suitable employment in Jamaica 

or England and as previously stated it is only because of the Government's liberal student and trainee policy that she has been able to 

acquire the necessary continuous physical presence requirements •of 

the statute. • 

After carefully considering all the evidence 15f record together 

with the representations of the trial attorney and counsel on appeal 

we will direct that the special inquiry officer's order of June 18, 1965 

granting the respondent's application for suspension of deportation 

be withdrawn. Since the respondent is statutorily eligible for voluntary departure we will remand the case to the special inquiry officer 

so that he may give consideration to her alternative request for the 

discretionary relief of voluntary departure and to afford the special 

inquiry officer the opportunity to direct the respondent's deportation 

to the country designated by her and for such further action as may 

be necessary and appropriate in the premises- Accordingly, the -following order will be entered. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal of the Service trial attorney 

be and the same is hereby sustained. 

It is further ordered that the order entered by the special inquiry 

313 
Interim Decision #1506 

officer on June 18, 1965, directing that the alien's deportation be suspended under the provisions of section 244(a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act be and the same is hereby withdrawn. 

It is further ordered that the ease he remanded to the special 

inquiry officer for the purposes set forth in the foregoing opinion and 

for the entry of an appropriate order. 

814