Interim Decision #1574 

MaxTea or B- 

 In Section 212(14 Proceedings 

A-6230838 

Decided by Associate Commissioner Aprn 13, 1968 

(1) "Extreme hardship" within the meaning of section 212(h), Imiiigration 

and Nationality Act, as amended, is established where applicant, unable to 

obtain employment abroad, for assistance has had to rely upon his 'United 

States citizen wife who is employed and who, in an effort to pay their debts 

of several thousand dollars resulting from his business failure about the 

time of departure, has practically impoverished herself; as a result of such 

strain her health has been impaired; liquidation of the debts is dependent 

upon his regular employment, and such has been offered if his admission is 

authorised. 

(2) Notwithstanding a long period of marital discord prior to 1981, apparently 

of own making, and a pattern of irresponsible conduct between 1250 and 

1980 which resulted in his 2 convictions for ,petty criminal offenses, since 

applicant has no criminal record after 1960; his present marriage appears 

stable; there is no evidence the multiple debts were incurred by wrongdoing nor has there hem any effort to avoid their payment; he has reflected a responsible attitude in departing voluntarily in an effort to correct 

his immigration status, knowing the Service had been unable to effect his 

deportation; and there is no indication of fraud or misrepresentation in 

connection with his subsequent entries as a nonimmigrant, which were made 

at a time of great stress on the:part of his wife, it is concluded his case 

merits the favorable e.xercise- of the Attorney General's discretion and 

his applications for a waiver of the grounds of excludability pursuant to 

section 212(h) of the Act, as amended, and for permission to reapply are 

granted. 

This case is before this office by certification pursuant to 8 CFB 

1034'for review of the Southeast Regional Commissioner's decision 

of January 175 1966 denying the applicant's motion to reconsider 

that officer's decision of May 28, 1965 denying the applicant the 

waiver set out in_the caption hereof, as a matter of discretion. 

The applicant is a 41-year old married male, citizen of Jordan, 

who was born in Jerusalem, Palestine. He was last reported as 

being domiciled in Jerusalem-Jordan and temporarily residing in 

Montreal, Canada. The more serious ground for his excludability 

560 
Interim Decision #1574 

from the United States arises under section 212(a) (9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for two convictions of crimes 

involving moral turpitude, to wit: 

(1) On April 7, 1951, in the Superior Court of Alameda County. California on 

a charge of issuing checks without sufficient funds for which he was sentenced 

to four years probation; and 

(2) On May 22, 1259, in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, California on a charge of issuing checks without sufficient funds for which he was 

sentenced to six months' imprisonment plus a period of probation. (In connection with the latter, there is an outstanding bench warrant issued in 1960, 

in absentia, for an alleged violation of the terms of his probation.)' 

An additional ground. of excludability exists under section 212(a) 

(17) of the Act, as an alien who has been arrested and deported, 

consent to reapply for admission not having been granted. An 

application has also been made for such consent. 

Although never admitted to the United States for permanent 

residence, the applicant resided continuously in this country for 

more than 17 years between 1946 to 1968. In addition, he entered 

as a temporary visitor on three occasions in 1964. Full details of 

his immigration status and activity while here are set forth in a 

decision of the Board of Immigration. Appeals, dated September 6, 

1951; a decision of the District Director, Miami, dated April 30, 

1965 and the Southeast Regional Commissioner's decision of May 28, 

1965. The factual matters contained therein are incorporated by 

reference and will only be summarized here. • 

The applicant first entered the United-States in 1946 as a student. 

An order of deportation was entered by the Board, on September 6, 

1951, for failure to maintain his status. A warrant for his deportation was thereafter issued but could not be executed because of 

inability to obtain documents for his entry into any other country. 

He self-executed his deportation by his voluntary departure foreign 

on November 18, 1963. 

From the time of his 1946 entry until late 1960, he resided principally in California. During that period he entered into three 

marriages, of which three United. Stites citizen children were born. 

All of these marriages terminated in divorce and the children reside 

in California with their respective mothers. There are conflicting 

claims as to the extent of support contributed by the applicant for 

the care of these children, following the termination of the marriages. However, ,it is clear- that any assistance rendered was 

sporadic. Notwithstanding this, it appears from the contents of 

letters to him from his children that they still esteem him. 

During the period between 1950 and 1900 the applicant also 

followed. a pattern of issuing checks for small sums on overdrawn 

561 
Interim Decision .#1674 

accbunts. • It is not clearly shown 'whether most of these were 

eventually paid up. In any event, this conduct only resulted in the 

two convictions previously referred to Irrespective If -the, 'latter, 

the. applicant's conduct clearly showed a. complete lack of a sense 

of responsibility and disregard fox the law, and be so concedes. 

Late in 1960 he moved to New York City where he met his 'present 

wife, -now a naturalized citizen, whom he married in 1961. ' They 

resided together until his voluntary departure, for the stated purpose of adjusting his immigration status and return to the United 

States, on November 18, 1963. About the time of his departure 

an import and export firm that he .had established failed. From 

at 'least the time of this marriage until the failure of the firm he 

had maintained established credit. In addition, during all of the 

period of-his New York residence, he had no arrest record. Following the failure of his firm he and his wife became the subjects of 

multiple civil suits for debts previously incurred. These debts totaled several thousand dollars. From the evidence, it appears that 

due to his unsettled immigration status as well as economic factors 

in the various countries in which he has resided. since his departure 

he has been unable,to obtain employment sufficient to maintain himself and has had to rely mainly on 'assistance from his wife. In 

fact, a United States Government- officer who appeared personally 

at this office in his behalf stated that while the applicant was in 

Santiago, Chile ,(where he lived a major portion of the time following his 1963 departure) the opportunities for employment were 

so few as to barely provide "cigarette money" for the applicant. 

lie further stated that the applicant always paid his debts there. 

In the interim his spouse, who is employed, has practically impoverished herself in her effort to pay of the debts either jointly 

or severally incurred. She has submitted proof that some of these 

debts have now been paid. in full and others are being liquidated 

to the extent that her limited means will allow. However, it appears 

that any substantial inroad is dependent upon her husband being 

able to obtain regular employment (In, this regard, he has been 

offered such employment here if his entry is authorized.) The record 

also contains medical evidence that his wife's health has been impaired by the strain which she is undergoing. - 

- On the basis of the record. it is concluded that the applicant's 

exclusion has resulted in extreme hardship to his United States 

• citizen spouse, and will continue to d.o.so. It is further found. that 

his admission to this country-would not be contrary-to the national 

welfare, -safety or security of the United States. 

The sole remaining question. is whether the applicant merits ex562 • 
Interim Decision #15T4 

eroise of the Attorney General's discretion to consent to his applying 

for a visa arid for admission to the United States. The Southeast 

Regional Commissioner has ruled that he does not and is of the 

opinion that the applicant's conduct and behavior of the more recent 

years has not been persuasive of any reformation on the applicant's 

part. The basis for this conclusion is fully set out in the decision 

of May 28, 1965 and need not be repeated here. 

As a prefatory comment to the weighing of whether discretion 

should be favorably exercised, it must be borne in mind that, 

• although a successful applicant under section 212(h) of the Act 

naturally gains a benefit, the basic purpose in granting • a waiver 

is to render relief to a citizen or lawful resident alien who is in 

extreme need thereof, unless to do so would be contrary to the good 

of the public in general. We have already found that the requisite 

harticbrp exists and that the applicant's admission would not be 

contrary to the public interest. 

It is recognized that for a long period of years prior to 1961, the 

applicant's life was marked by marital discord, apparently of his 

own making, and a pattern of irresponsible conduct which eventually 

resulted in two convictions for petty criminal offenses. However, 

he has had no criminal record since 1960 and his present marriage, 

despite his unsuccessful previous ones, appears stable. The latter is 

evidenced by the persistence displayed -by his wife in her efforts to 

enable him to rejoin her here as well as her many trips abroad to 

be with him. 

The Regional Commissioner has drawn an adverse inference as 

to the applicant's reformation from the fact that the applicant (and 

his wife) became the subject of multiple civil suits, late in 1963 and 

in 1964 for debts previously incurred. It is not believed that such 

an inference is warranted by the record. It is asserted by the applicant and his wife that these debt actions stemmed from his business 

failure. There is no evidence of wrong-doing in incurring them. 

It is also noted that no effort has been made to avoid their payment 

through the medium of bankruptcy proceedings or otherwise.. 

We draw a favorable inference as to a more responsible attitude 

on the part of the applicant from his voluntary departure in an 

effort to correct his immigration status, although he knew that the 

Service had been unable to effect his deportation. 

The only substantial adverse information of record, following his 

1963 departure, is the fact that, although excludable, he made three 

entries to this country in 1964, as a documented non-immigrant, and 

a statement from the American Consul in Santiago, Chile (with 

whom he had only official contact) expressing strong doubt as to his 

563 
Interim Decision #1574 

integrity and good reputation in the community. With regard to the 

former, the record reflects that these entries were made during a 

period of great stress on the part of his wife and there is nothing 

to indicate that fraud or misrepresentation -was involved in the obtaining of entry documents. As to the Consul's statement, opposed 

thereto is a letter from another United States Government official 

attesting to his personal acquaintanceship with the applicant in San- - 

tiago and his good character. In addition, there has been received, 

in connection with this review, a letter from another United States 

-Government officer who also knew the applicant personally, which 

is entirely favorable to him. In each instance, the writers were 

aware of his prior difficulties. The record also contains statements 

from other responsible persons, who knew the applicant in New 

York City, which reflect favorably on his present character. 

The applicant's-earlier irresponsibility and misconduct cannot be, 

and are not, condoned. However, on the basis of the compassionate 

factors and present record it is concluded that, in the exercise of the 

Attorney General's discretion, the applications should be granted. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the application of 11-11—E—, also 

known as F—B—, for permission to reapply for admission to the 

United States after deportation be and is hereby granted. 

It is further ordered that the application for waiver of excludability under section 212(a) (9) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, be and is hereby granted pursuant to the authority contained in 

section 212(h) of the Act, PROVIDED that the waiver shall apply 

only to the grounds for exclusion describe& herein. 

5(i4