Interim Decision #1464 

MATTER OF Ur 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-10221792 

Decided by Board May 5, 1966 

Respondent, a ,28-year-old native of the Philippines and citizen of China, who 

entered the United States as a student,. has resided here a few months in 

excess of 8 years during which he receiv'ed the degrees of Bachelor of 

Science and Master of Science In physics, and who has no family ties in this 

country, has not established that his deportation would result in "extreme 

hardship" within the meaning of section 244(a) (1), Immigration and Natloirsay Act, as amended, because of the mere fact that he would suffer some 

economic hardship. Mt Matter of Hwang, Int. Dec. No. 1218.] 

CHARGE: 

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

longer, student. 

- The case comes forward pursuant to certification by the special 

inquiry officer of his order dated February 10, 1965 finding the re-, 

spondent deportable on the charge stated in the order to show cause 

and granting him the,priyilego of voluntary departure in lieu of deportation with the further order that if he failed to depart when 

and as required he be deported to the Republic of the Philippines, 

alternatively to the Republic of China on Formosa. 

The record relates to a native of the Republic of the Philippines, 

a citizen of China, 28 years old, single, who was admitted to the 

United Statei at Honolulu, Hawaii on or about September 3, 1956 

as a student and was authorized to remain in that status until September 2, 1957. Subsequently, he was granted voluntary departure 

in yearly increments conditioned on his maintaining studies or 

educational assignment and on May 15, 1968 a first prefetence visa 

petition was approved and he was granted permission to remain 

in the United States until May 14, 1964, further extensions being 

conditioned upon his remaining the beneficiary of an unexpired 

visa petition. However, on April 3, 1964 he left 'the employment 

159 
Interim Decision. #1464 

of the first preference visa petitioner and has since remained in 

the United States.. Deportability on. the charge stated in the order 

to show cause is established. 

The respondent has established good ' moral character for the 

period he has resided in the United States. He attended universities 

where he was awarded a degree of Bachelor of Science in Physics 

in September 1960 and a degree of Master of Science in Physics on 

December 15, 1962. At the University of Minnesota he was employed as a technician and engineer trainee and after graduation 

he worked for UNIVAC for 14 months at a salary of $160 per 

week. The respondent is now attending classes at Stanford University, not for credit, but merely as an auditor. He has done parttime work as a Russian translator and is presently living on his 

savings which total about $1800. His parents, also of the Chinese 

race, were naturalized in the Philippines in 1956 or 1957 and 

although he apparently derived Philippine citizenship through his 

parents' naturalization, he has had some difficulty in securing a 

Philippine passport because of a question of identity. The respondent has five brothers and seven sisters in the Philippines, all of his 

brothers being employed. He is in possession of a valid passport of 

the Republic of China on Formosa. 

The quota for the Philippines is oversubscribed and respondent 

cannot obtain an immigrant visa for that reason. He testified his 

deportation would result in hardship to himself because he would 

find it difficult to adjust to a new environment outside of the United 

States and he would have limited opportunities in his field of 

academic training. He believes that he might obtain work as a 

teacher. 

The respondent has applied for suspension of deportation under 

section 244(a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as 

amended. As one of the necessary qualifying ingredients, he must 

establish that his deportation would, in the opinion of the Attorney 

General, result in extreme hardship to himselfsince he has no 

qualifying relatives in the United States. 

The respondent is 2• years of age and has resided in the United 

States only since September 1956'or a few' months in excess of eight 

years. He was. about nineteen and a half years old when he came 

to this country as a student intending to return to his native country 

at the completion of his echication. However, while in the United 

Stites he underwent a change of mind and now desires to remain 

in this country. All of his family ties are in the Philippines where 

his father was formerly engaged in the textile business and whore 

his fivebrothers are all employed. In additions he has seven sisters 

• 160 
Interim Decision #1464 

there. Apparently, the-respondent left 1TNIVAC, the company 

which petitioned for his. first preference because of difficulties as the 

result of undue pressures on him. He is presently doing part-time 

work as a Russian transistor. Bearing in mind that the respondent. 

entered the United States as a student, that he has no family ties 

in this country and•all of his ties are in the Philippines, the mere 

fact that the respondent would 'suffer some economic hardship does 

not constitute "extreme hardship" so as to qualify him for the discretionary relief of suspension of deportation. Upon the record it 

is believed that voluntary departure is the maximum - relief which 

should be granted. 

The special inquiry officer has referred to Matter of Hwang, int. 

Dec. No. 1319, and to certain decisions rendered by him in the 

belief that he was bound by the guide lines laid clown in Matter 

of Hwang, Matter of Hwang does not lay down any hard and 

fast rules. It states that 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 but necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances 

peculiar to each case. It was pointed out that the term "extreme 

hardship" admits of varying degrees of severity; the limits of personal deprivation and economic detriment contemplated in the term 

"extreme hardship" cannot be stated in a hard. and fast rule: It• 

was conceded that it could be found that the return of an alien who 

was admitted as a foreign student to the country whence he came 

might result in extreme hardship within the meaning of section 

21.4(a) (1), as amended, in certain circumstances, but the absence of 

substantial equities arising from the fact that after admission as a 

student and the residence in the United States for approximately 

eight years did .not. affirmatively establish extreme hardship. 

Thus it can be seen that we did not preclude an alien who entered 

the United States as a nonimmigrant-student from a grant of suspension of deportation pursuant to section 244(a) (1) where there 

existed in a case equitable factors which resulted in a finding of 

exceptional hardship within the meaning of the statute. A close 

examination of the cases selected by the special inquiry officer discloses the existence of other favorable and equitable factors which 

resulted in a finding of exceptional hardship? Each case must be 

1 1n one of the eases there was long residence of 25 years; in another, the 

alien bad spent her formative years in the United States, all of her family ties 

and meaningful associations were in the United States and she was no longer 

familiar with the dialect which was the prevailing language of the island to 

which she would return; in still another case the alien bad not resided in her 

native country, China, since she was 17 years old. 

161 
Interim Decision #1464 

analyzed on the basis of the factual details present therein and each 

case must be considered on its own merits in making a finding of exceptional hardship. The line which may separate a finding of extreme hardship nray be at times close, but it is- based. upon a study 

. of the circumstances of each case and the presence of substantial 

equities. • 

ORDER: It is ordered that the order of the special inquiry officer 

dated February 10, 1965' ibe- and the same is hereby approved. 

162