Interim Decision #1953 

MATTER OF LAI 

In Section 212(e) Proceedings 

A-10396981 

Decided by Regional Commissioner April 4, 1969 

Applicant is denied a waiver of the foreign residence requirement of section 

212(e), Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, since the alleged 

hardships to his minor U.S. citizen child—namely, language difficulty, 

lesser educational opportunities, and hardship which would result from applicant's alleged inadequate salary in Taiwan—constitute only the usual 

hardships that may be anticipated rather than the exceptional hardships 

contemplated by the statute; further, applicant and his family previously 

resided in Taiwan and there is no showing they underwent hardships; applicant now has a doctorate degree and should command a higher salary; 

the citizen child, age 3, is not yet ready for school, and she will continue 

in practically the same home environment as here with her parents and 5 

sisters and brothers, who have all lived in Taiwan and are familiar with 

the Chinese language. 

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: Mai Old, Esquire 

Suite 800 

233 Queen Street 

Honolulu, Hawaii . 

This case comes before the Regional Commissioner on appeal 

from the decision of the District Director, Honolulu who on January 23, 1969 denied the application in that the applicant had not 

established that compliance with the two-year foreign residence 

requirement of section 212 (e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, would impose exceptional hardship on Ms 

minor United States citizen child. 

The applicant is a 46-year-old married male, native and citizen 

of China, who was last admitted as an exchange visitor under 

section 101(a) (15) (J), of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

as amended, on August 2, 1965, and received extensions of stay in 

that status to July 1, 1968. He was sponsored by Michigan State 

University under Program P.I. 655 as a research instructor to do 

experimental research, and to pursue a doctorate degree. He received a yearly stipend of *5,200 paid from the university experi188 
• Interim Decision #1953 

ment station funds. He received his Ph.D. in soil science from the 

university on September 1, 1967, and has, since graduating, been 

employed as an Associate Agronomist by the Hawaiian Sugar 

Planters' Association in Honolulu, Hawaii at an annual salary of 

$12,000. The applicant had first come to the United States as an 

exchange "J" student in December 1954, also sponsored by Michigan State University under the same Program, P.I. 655, and received his Master's degree in soil science in the spring of 1956. In 

December 1956 he returned to Taiwan where he was employed by 

the Taiwan Sugar Experiment Station until he again returned to 

the United States as a visiting research scientist in March 1959 

under Program P.I. 2628, sponsored 1137 the National Academy of 

Sciences of the United States of America, and supported by the 

National Cooperation Administration of the United States Government. He returned to Taiwan in March 1961 and was again 

employed by the Taiwan Sugar Experimental Station as Head of 

the Soil and Fertilizers Department, and in charge of the Radio 

Isotope Laboratory until the time of his last admission to the 

United States in August 1965. He is the beneficiary of a petition 

for preference classification under section 203(a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as a member of the professions as a 

soil scientist who was approved on February 3, 1969. He filed the 

present application for waiver of the foreign residence requirement of section 212 (e) of the Act on October 14, 1968. 

The applicant's wife, a native and citizen of China, and five 

children, ranging in age from seven to eighteen years, all natives 

and citizens of China, were admitted with the applicant on August 2, 1965 in "J-2" status as the wife and dependent children 

of the applicant. The wife and children reside with the applicant 

in Honolulu, Hawaii. Satisfactory evidence has been presented 

showing that the applicant and his wife have one child three 

years of age born in Michigan, residing with them in Hawaii. 

The instant application is submitted on the claim that exceptional 

hardship would be imposed on the United States citizen child if 

the applicant is required to depart from the United States to 

comply with the two-year foreign residence requirement of section 212(e) of the Act. 

Section 212 (e) of the Act provides in part as follows ( "That 

upon the favorable recommendation of the Secretary of State, 

pursuant to the request of an interested United States Government agency, or of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization after he has determined that departure from the 

United States would impose exceptional hardship upon the alien's 

189 
Interim Decision #1953 

spouse or child (if such spouse or .child is a citizen of the United 

States or a lawfully resident alien), the Attorney General may 

waive the requirement of such two-year foreign residence abroad 

in the case of any alien whose admission to the United States is 

found by the Attorney General to be in the public interest." 

The applicant alleges that if he is required to depart from the 

United States and return to Taiwan, his approximate monthly 

salary in Taiwan would be the equivalent of from $100 to $125 

American money, compared to the $1,000 a month he earns in 

Hawaii and that such salary would be inadequate to support his 

family and would result in exceptional hardship to the United 

States citizen child. Though true there may be a difference in salary, $126 in American money will go a lot further in Taiwan 

than in Honolulu where expenses are much higher than in Taiwan; furthermore, petitioner, his wife and five children lived in 

Taiwan prior to coming to the United States in 1965 and there is 

no showing that they underwent hardships during such prior Taiwan residence. Then too, the applicant now has a doctorate degree and should command a higher salary than he did during his 

previous employment as an agronomist when he did not have the 

high academic degree he now has. Taiwan is an enlightened, progressive nation and the applicant with a doctorate degree should 

be able to support his family without r_ ejecting them to exceptional hardship. 

The applicant. also states that his wife and his oldest daughter 

suffer from allergies and that his second daughter has a "special 

problem". The "special problem" has not been further defined. No 

allegation has been made that departure from the United States 

will aggravate the allergies or that the allergies cannot be adequately treated in Taiwan where the change in environment may 

even alleviate the conditions.- The departure from the United 

States of the mother and sisters can hardly be considered as imposing a hardship on the United States citizen child much less exceptional hardship. 

The applicant also claims that the citizen child would have 

lesser educational opportunities in Taiwan and would have difficulty in learning the Chinese language. However, the child is only 

three years old and will not be ready for school for several more 

years, and is the youngest child of a family of five other children, 

all born in Taiwan, who have lived in Taiwan and are all familiar 

with the Chinese language; the United States citizen child will experience very little if. any difficulty in adjusting to the mother 

tongue of the parents and other family members. 

190 
Interim Decision #1953 

The statute provides that a waiver on hardship grounds may be 

granted only if the exchange alien has a United States citizen or 

lawful resident alien spouse or child and compliance with the foreign residence requirement would impose exceptional hardship 

upon that spouse or child. Some psychological factors will usually 

be involved in a move by a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident to a country where the customs, language and mode 

of living are strange. However, in the instant case the citizen 

child will continue in practically the same home environment she 

enjoyed in the United States when her parents and five sisters 

and brothers returned to their native land where they lived prior 

to their coming to the United States about three and one-half 

years ago. 

The factors in the case have been carefully considered. From 

the foregoing it is concluded that the hardships that have been 

set forth constitute the usual hardships which could be anticipated rather than the exceptional hardship such as contemplated 

by the statute. The applicant has failed to establish that exceptional hardship would be imposed on the United States Citizen 

child by his departure from the United States in compliance with 

section 212 (e) of the Act. The appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed. 

• 

191