Interim Decision #3175 

MATTER OF BALSILLIR 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-26685496 

Decided by Board May 12, 1992 

(1) The Immigration and Nationality Act provides two means by which the conditional 

basis of a conditional permanent resident's status may be removed: the alien and the 

United States citizen spouse may file a Joint Petition to Remove the Conditional 

Basis of Alien's Permanent Resident Status (Form 1-751) under section 216(c)(1) of 

the Act, 8 § 1186(c)(1) (Supp. II 1990), or the alien may file an Application for 

Waiver of Requirement to File Joint Petition for Removal of Conditions (Form 1-752) 

under section 216(c)(4). 

(2) Section 216(c)(4) of the Act, as amended, and the corresponding regulations at 8 

C.F.R. § 216.5 (1992) provide three separate waivers of the requirement to file a joint 

petition for removal of the conditional basis of a conditional permanent resident's 

status_ 

CHARGE: 

Order. Act of 1952—Sec. 241(a)(9)(B) [8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(9)(B)1—Conditional resident 

status terminated 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: 

Judith Howell, Esquire 

Catholic Immigration Services 

3417 West 38th Avenue 

Denver, Colorado 80211 

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Cathy Auble 

General Attorney 

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members 

By means of an order dated March 6, 1991, an immigration judge 

denied the respondent's request for a waiver under section 216(c)(4) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) (Supp. II 

1990), ordered her deportation to the Philippines, and granted her the 

privilege of voluntary departure in lieu of deportation. On March 28, 

1991, the immigration judge issued a notice and order certifying the 

case to this Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(c) and 3.7 (1991). We 

consider this case on that basis. The respondent's request for a waiver 

under section 216(c)(4)(B) of the Act will be granted, the conditional 

486 
Interim Decision #3175 

basis of her lawful permanent resident status will be removed, and the 

proceedings will be terminated. 

The question on certification is whether section 216(c)(4) of the Act, 

as amended, provides three separate waiver provisions or rather 

merely two, the first of which consists of sections 216(c)(4)(A) and (B) 

jointly and the second being the "battered spouse" waiver set forth in 

section 216(c)(4)(C). 

The respondent is a 36-year-old native and citizen of the Philippines. On October 28, 1986, she entered the United States as the 

fiancee of a United States citizen under section 101(a)(15XK) of the 

Act, 8 U.S.C_ § 1101(a)(15)(K) (1982). She married her fiance and on 

October 23, 1987, she was granted conditional permanent resident 

status under section 216(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1186(a) (Supp. IV 

1986). 

The Act provides two means by which the conditional basis of a 

conditional permanent resident's status may be removed. The alien 

and the United States citizen spouse may file a Joint Petition to 

Remove the Conditional Basis of Alien's Permanent Resident Status 

(Form 1-751) under section 216(c)(1) of the Act or the alien may file an 

Application for Waiver of Requirement to File Joint Petition for 

Removal of Conditions (Form 1-752) under section 216(c)(4). The 

respondent chose the latter course, and on November 7, 1989, she filed 

a Form I-752 before a district director of the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service. The respondent was then interviewed by an 

officer of the Service to determine whether a waiver was warranted in 

her case. On April 4, 1990, the district director issued a decision 

denying the -waiver, and deportation proceedings were initiated under 

section 241(a)(9)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(9)(B) (1988). 1 

The respondent appeared before the immigration judge with 

counsel and renewed her request for a waiver under section 216(c)(4) 

of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) (1988). On July 6, 1990, the 

immigration judge, after consideration of the testimony and evidence 

of record, found the respondent deportable as charged and denied the 

request for a waiver. At the time that decision was rendered, section 

216(c)(4) provided two alternative waivers: one based on a showing of 

extreme hardship, and the other based on a showing that the marriage 

was entered into in good faith and was terminated by the alien spouse 

for good cause and that the alien was not at fault in failing to meet the 

'This section of the Act has been revised and redesignated as section 241(a)(1)(D) of 

the Act, R 6 1251(a)(1)(D) (Sul:m.111990), by section 602(a) of the Immigration 

Act of 1990, Pub. L No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, 5078, but that amendment does not 

apply to deportation proceedings for which notice has been provided to the alien before 

March 1, 1991- See section 602(d) of the Immigration Act of 1990, 104 Stat. at 5082. 

487 
Interim Decision #3175 

requirements for filing a joint petition and appearing at the interview 

with the petitioning spouse? 

In his decision of July 6, 1990, the immigration judge found that the 

respondent failed to qualify for either waiver set forth in section 

216(c)(4)(A) or (B) of the Act. With regard to the waiver provided 

under subsection (A), she had failed to demonstrate extreme hardship. 

With regard to the waiver under subsection (B), she had not 

terminated the marriage. Relief from deportation under section 

216(c)(4) was therefore denied. The respondent appealed. 

During the pendency of the appeal, Congress enacted section 701(a) 

of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, 

which amended the waiver provisions of section 216(c)(4) of the Act to 

provide as follows: 

Hardship Waiver.—The Attorney General, in the Attorney General's discretion, may 

remove the conditional basis of the permanent resident status for an alien who fails 

to meet the requirements of paragraph (1) if the alien demonstrates that— 

(A) extreme hardship would result if such alien is deported, 

(a) the qualifying marriage was entered into in good faith by the alien spouse, but 

the qualifying marriage has been terminated (other than through the death of the 

spouse) and the alien was not at fault in failing to meet the requirements of paragraph 

(1), or 

(C) the qualifying marriage was entered into in good faith by the alien spouse and 

during the marriage the alien spouse or child was battered by or was the subject of 

extreme cruelty perpetrated by his or her spouse or citizen or permanent resident 

parent and the alien was not at fault in failing to meet the requirements of paragraph 

( 1 ). 

In determining extreme hardship, the Attorney General shall consider circumstances 

occurring only during the period that the alien was admitted for permanent residence 

on a conditional basis. The Attorney General shall, by regulation, establish measures 

to protect the confidentiality of information concerning any abused alien spouse or 

child, including information regarding the whereabouts of such spouse or child. 

104 Stat. at 5085-86. 

On the basis of that amendment, the respondent withdrew her 

2As originally enacted in the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, Pub. 

L. No. 99-639, 100 Stat. 3537, section 216(e)(4) provided: 

Hardship Waiver.—The Attorney General, in the Attorney General's discretion, 

may remove the conditional basis of the permanent resident Status for an alien who 

fails to meet the requirements of paragraph (1) if the alien demonstrates that— 

(A) extreme hardship would result if such alien is deported, or 

(B) the qualifying marriage was entered into in good faith by the alien spouse, but 

the qualifying marriage has been terminated (other than through the death of the 

spouse) by the alien spouse for good cause and the alien was not at fault in failing to 

meet the requirements of paragraph (1). 

In determining extreme hardship, the Attorney General shall consider circumstances 

occurring only during the period that the alien was admitted for permanent residence on 

a conditional basis. 

488 
Interim Decision #3175 

appeal and moved to reopen the proceedings before the immigration 

judge. The Service stated that it did not oppose the motion, and the 

proceedings were reopened. At the reopened hearing, little new 

evidence was introduced since the case was to be redecided on a 

question of law rather than fact. 

On March 6, 1991, after hearing the arguments of both parties, the 

immigration judge issued a decision finding the respondent ineligible 

for a waiver under section 216(c)(4) of the Act. The immigration judge 

found that, by eliminating the "or" between subsections (A) and (B) of 

that section, Congress intended to merge the requirements of the two 

subsections into one waiver. Having previously found that the 

respondent had failed to demonstrate that she would suffer extreme 

hardship, the immigration judge found her ineligible for a waiver 

under combined sections 216(c)(4)(A) and (B). The respondent did not 

apply for a "battered spouse" waiver under subsection (C). 

In the alternative, the immigration judge found that the respondent 

satisfied the requirements of subsection (B), as amended, and that if 

subsections (A) and (B) were to be read as separate waivers the 

respondent should be granted a waiver under section 216(0(4)(3). 

The immigration judge accordingly certified the case to this Board 

to determine whether section 216(c)(4) of the Act, as amended, 

provides three rather than two waivers. 

As discussed above, section 216(c)(4) of the Act originally provided 

two separate waivers: section 216(c)(4)(A) or (B). The Immigration Act 

of 1990 added a new waiver for battered spouses in subsection (C), 

deleted the requirement for the alien spouse to have terminated the 

marriage in subsection (B), and deleted the "or" between subsections 

(A) and (B). 

The Service argues that by deleting the "or" between subsections 

(A) and (B), Congress intended to merge the first two waivers. Thus, an 

alien could apply for a battered spouse waiver under new subsection 

(C), or for a waiver satisfying both the extreme hardship requirement 

of subsection (A) and the good faith requirements of subsection (B). 

The respondent argues that Congress intended merely to amend the 

requirements of the subsection (B) "good faith" waiver and to add a 

new, third waiver. According to the respondent, the deletion of the 

"or" after subsection (A) is merely a grammatical change necessitated 

by the addition of a third alternative. The respondent points out that 

an "or" exists between subsections (B) and (C), and that the three 

subsections should be read as a series of alternatives. 

The respondent contends that such an interpretation merely follows 

common usage and plain meaning. Specifically, the respondent points 

out that style manuals consistently apply the rule that when three or 

more words, phrases, or clauses of a compound sentence are intended 

489 
Interim Decision #3175 

to be joined by the same conjunction, the clauses are separated by 

commas and the conjunction is only stated before the last instance. 

The respondent quotes the following two examples: 

red, white, and blue 

by the bolt, by the yard, or in remnants 

U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual Rule 8.43 (1984). 

In interpreting a statute which we are charged with administering, 

we look first to the plain meaning of the provisions in question. See 

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (quoting Richards v. United 

States, 369 U.S. 1, 9 (1962)). We agree with the respondent that by 

common usage the plain meaning of section 216(c)(4), as amended, 

provides three alternative waivers. See William Strunk Jr. & E.B. 

White, The Elements of Style Rule 2 (3d ed. 1979). 

Moreover, we find that the regulation governing waivers under 

section 216 of the Act also provides three independent waivers. That 

regulation was amended after the date of the immigration judge's 

decision to conform with the 1990 amendments to section 216 of the 

Act. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 216.5 now provides, in pertinent 

part, as follows: 

Waiver of requirement to file petition to remove conditions. 

(a) General. A conditional resident alien who is unablc tv Inca t he requirements 

for removal of the conditional basis of his or her permanent residence [sic] status 

may file an Application for Waiver of Requirement to File Joint Petition for 

Removal of Conditions (Form 1-752), if the alien was not at fault in failing to meet 

the filing requirement and the conditional resident alien is able to establish that: 

(1) Deportation from the United States would result in extreme hardship; 

(2) The marriage upon which his or her status was based was entered into in good 

faith by the conditional resident alien, but the marriage was terminated other than by 

death, and the conditional resident was not at fault in failing to file a timely petition; 

Or 

(3) The qualifying marriage was entered into in good faith by the conditional 

resident but during the marriage the alien spouse or child was battered by or 

subjected to extreme cruelty committed by the citizen or permanent resident spouse 

or parent. 

(e) Adjudication of waiver application— 

(I) Application based on claim of hardship.... 

(2) Application for waiver based upon the alien's claim that the marriage was 

entered into in good faith.... 

(3) Application for waiver based on alien's claim of having been battered or 

subjected to extreme mental cruelty. 

8 C.F.R. § 216.5 (1992). 

Prior to the amendments, the regulation first set forth the two 

490 
Interim Decision #3175 

alternative waivers for "extreme hardship" cases and "good faith" 

cases, closely following the language of the statute, including the use of 

"or" between them. 8 C.F.R. §§ 216.5(a)(1)-(2) (1991). The regulation 

then stated in greater detail the requirements for the two waivers, 

devoting a separate subsection to the requirements for each at 8 C.F.R. 

§§ 216.5(e)(1) and (2) (1991). 

The amended version of 8 C.F.R. § 216.5 (1992) still closely follows 

the statute, adding the new waiver for battered spouses in subsection 

(a)(3), deleting the requirement for the alien spouse to have terminated 

the marriage in subsection (a)(2), and deleting the "or" between the 

original two waivers in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) while adding an 

"or" before the new waiver at subsection (a)(3). Of greatest relevance 

to the issue before us, however, is the fact that, as amended, 8 C.F.R. 

§ 216.5(e) (1992) continues to devote separate subsections to the 

detailed requirements for each of the three waiver provisions, each 

bearing its own title, in subsections (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3). 

In maintaining the separate descriptions and requirements of each 

waiver provision, the regulation appears to be setting forth three 

separate waivers. This impression is unequivocally confirmed by the 

summary issued with the amendments to 8 C.F.R. § 216.5 (1992). In 

that summary, the Service states that the amended version of 8 C.F.R. 

§ 216.5 "implements section 701 of the Immigration Act of 1990 ... 

by amending the existing waiver provisions and providing a third basis 

for exempting a conditional resident from meeting the joint filing 

requirement of section 216 of the Act." 56 Fed. Reg. 22,635 (1991). 

See also the supplementary information issued with the amended 

regulation at 56 Fed. Reg. 22,635-37 (1991) which discusses in greater 

detail the reasons for the amendments to the waiver provisions. 

Accordingly, we find that section 216(c)(4) of the Act and the 

corresponding regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 216.5 (1992) provide three 

separate waivers of the requirement to file a joint petition for removal 

of the conditional basis of a conditional permanent resident's status. 

In his alternative ruling, the immigration judge found that the 

respondent satisfied the requirements under section 216(c)(4)(B) of the 

Act, as amended, if that section provided a separate waiver. Therefore, 

as we have found that section 216(c)(4)(B) of the Act now provides a 

waiver which is independent of the other two waivers provided by 

section 216(c)(4), the following order shall be entered. 

ORDER: The respondent is granted a waiver under section 

216(c)(4)(B) of the Act and the conditional basis of her lawful 

permanent resident status is hereby removed. 

FURTHER ORDER: The deportation proceedings are terminated. 

491