Interim Decision #2161 

MATTER OF H— 

In Section 212(h) Proceedings 

A-12516129 

Decided by Regional Commissioner August 24, 1972 

"Extreme hardship" within the meaning of section 212(h) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, as amended, is established where applicant's United States 

citizen spouse is 81 years of age and has already endured a 15-year exile from 

the United States to remain with the applicant in Mexico. Inasmuch as 

applicant has established complete reformation from the activities which 

rendered her excludable and the stability of the relationship between the 

applicant and her citizen spouse has been satisfactorily demonstrated, her 

application for a waiver of the ground of excludability pursuant to section 

212(h) of the Act is granted. 

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: L. A. Velarde, Jr. 

United States Catholic Conference 

Division of Migration & Refugee Services 

700 S. Santa Fe 

El Paso, Texas 79901 

This case is before the Regional Commissioner on appeal from 

the decision of the District Director, Mexico City, who on April 13, 

1972 found that exclusion of the applicant would not result in 

extreme hardship to her United States citizen husband and denied 

her application for waiver of excludability. 

The applicant is a 42-year-old married female, a native and 

citizen of Mexico residing in Juarez, Mexico with her United 

States citizen husband and her 14-year-old illegitimate Mexican 

citizen daughter who has been adopted by her husband. She has 

never resided in the United States. The American Consul, Juarez, 

Mexico, on October 8, 1971 found her to be eligible to receive an 

immigrant visa in all respects except for her excludability under 

section 212(a)(12) of the Act. This excludability stems from the fact 

that she had practiced prostitution in Juarez, Mexico from 1952 to 

about 1956 or 1957. She has stated she practiced prostitution in 

order to help support her sister who had twelve children. 

The applicant's husband, 81 years of age, was born in Massachusetts and was employed by a manufacturing company in Massa185 
Interim Decision #2161 

chusetts until his retirement in 1957. Upon retirement he came to 

El Paso, met the applicant in Juarez, Mexico, and in that same 

year, 1957, started living with her in Juarez and then married her 

on May 15, 1970. His current income consists of $168.00 per month 

in social security payments and approximately $410.00 per month 

in stock dividends and bank interest. He estimates the total value 

of his estate to be approximately $100,000.00. Most of his assets are 

invested in various stocks which are listed for the record. He has 

been living in Juarez with his wife and adopted daughter and has 

been providing full support for the two of them since 1957. On July 

9, 1971 he filed a petition in behalf of the applicant as the spouse of 

a United States citizen. This petition was approved on July 21, 

1971. 

The District Director in his decision of the case now before us 

stated: 

There is no particular hardship caused to the principal relative as a result of the 

applicant's exclusion from the United States. He is retired and has voluntarily 

lived with the applicant in Ciudad Juarez since 1957; therefore, there is no 

separation of family. He has sufficient income and resources to support the 

family without working in the United States. in fact, as a retiree, it is probably 

to his financial advantage to live in Mexico due to the lower cost of living as 

compared to that in the United States. 

We do not find that the facts and circumstances in the case 

'Warrant the denial of the application. In the Matter of Hwang, 10 I. 

& N Dec. 448, in a discussion of the term "extreme hardship", it is 

stated: 

The personal privation contemplated in a situation characterized by "extreme 

hardship" within the meaning of the statute is not a definable term of fixed and 

inflexible content or meaning. It necessarily depends upon the facts and 

circumstances peculiar to each case. 

In the case before us we are not considering an 81-year-old 

United States citizen, never previously married, who late in life 

finds a compatible companion and begins living with her in 1957 

and knowing her past history was still content to enjoy her 

company and her care and in return he provided her and her child, 

not adopted by him, his full support. She was excludable and he 

could not bring her to the United States to live with him. He then 

married her, petitioned for her as his spouse and made her eligible 

to apply for waiver of her excludability. His residence in Mexico is 

not necessarily voluntary. He wants to live with his wife and at 

present can only, live with her in Mexico. He can live with his wife 

in the United States only if the present application is granted and 

she is granted a visa and admitted to the United States. That he 

wants to and intends to live in the United States where he lived 

until 1957 is evidenced by the fact that he married her, petitioned 

for her as his wife and now is awaiting final Service decision on 

186 
Interim Decision #2161 

her application for waiver of excludability which, if granted, will 

make his wants possible. 

Considering the age of the applicant's United States citizen 

spouse, the demonstrated stability of his relationship with the 

applicant and the fact that he has already experienced a 15-year 

exile from the United States in order to remain with the applicant, 

it is concluded that he has already endured hardship and would 

continue to endure considerable hardship in the future if the 

benefit he seeks is withheld. In the Matter of Shaughnessy, 12 I. & 

N. Dec. 810, it is pointed out that "the term 'would result in 

extreme hardship' as used in section 212(h) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, as amended, encompasses both present and fu 

ture hardship". 

The applicant's husband has a monthly income of $578.00 and 

$100,000.00 in stocks and bonds. He is financially well able to` 

maintain and support himself and family in the United States for 

the remaining years of his life. We cannot in good conscience find 

that he is voluntarily living in Mexico for economic reasons. The 

applicant has undergone a complete rehabilitation. Other than her 

activities as a prostitute before she met her husband, there is no 

derogatory information whatsoever. 

Considering all the evidence and circumstances in the case, we 

find that the record satisfactorily establishes that the exclusion of 

the applicant would result in extreme hardship to her United 

States citizen spouse as contemplated by section 212(h) of the Act 

and that admission to the United States would not be contrary to 

the national welfare, safety or security of the United States. We 

find that the favorable exercise of the Attorney General's discretionary authority is fully warranted. The appeal will be sustained 

and the application granted. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be sustained and the 

application granted. 

187