Source: http://www.smartimmigrationlawyer.com/category/unlawful-presence/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:11:11+00:00

Document:
The applicant is a citizen of India who was found inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), for having been convicted of two separate crimes involving moral turpitude: robbery and theft.
The applicant sought a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Act in order to reside in the United States with his U.S. citizen spouse.
(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime . . . is inadmissible.
[M]oral turpitude is a nebulous concept, which refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one’s fellow man or society in general.. ..In determining whether a crime involves moral turpitude, we consider whether the act is accompanied by a vicious motive or corrupt mind. Where knowing or intentional conduct is an element of an offense, we have found moral turpitude to be present. However, where the required mens rea may not be determined from the statute, moral turpitude does not inhere.
(B) in the case of,an immigrant who is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if it established to the satisfaction of the [Secretary] that the alien’s denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to the United States citizen or lawfully resident spouse, parent, son, or daughter of such alien.
(2) the [Secretary], in [her] discretion, and pursuant to such terms, conditions and procedures as [she] may by regulations prescribe, has consented to the alien’s applying or reapplying for a visa, for admission to the United States, or adjustment of status.
Extreme hardship is “not a definable term of fixed and inflexible content or meaning,” but “necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.” Matter of Hwang, 10 I&N Dec. 448, 451 (BIA 1964). In Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, the Board provided a list of factors it deemed relevant in determining whether an alien has established extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565 (BIA 1999). The factors include the presence of a lawful permanent resident or United States citizen spouse or parent in this country; the qualifying relative’s family ties outside the United States; the conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties in such countries; the financial impact of departure from this country; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate. Id. The Board added that not all of the foregoing factors need be analyzed in any given case and emphasized that the list of factors was not exclusive. Id . at 566.
The Board has also held that the common or typical results of removal and inadmissibility do not constitute extreme hardship, and has listed certain individual hardship factors considered common rather than extreme. These factors include: economic disadvantage, loss of current employment, inability to maintain one’s present standard of living, inability to pursue a chosen profession, separation from family members, severing community ties, cultural readjustment after living in the United States for many years, cultural adjustment of qualifying relatives who have never lived outside the United States, inferior economic and educational opportunities in the foreign country, or inferior medical facilities in the foreign country. See generally Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. at 568; Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627, 632-33 (BIA 1996); Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880, 883 (BIA 1994); Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. 245, 246-47 (Comm’r 1984); Matter of Kim, 15 I&N Dec. 88, 89-90 (BIA 1974); Matter of Shaughnessy, 12 I&N Dec. 810, 813 (BIA 1968).
However, though hardships may not be extreme when considered abstractly or individually, the Board has made it clear that “[r]elevant factors, though not extreme in themselves, must be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists.” Matter of 0-J-0-, 21 I&N Dec. 381, 383 (BIA 1996) (quoting Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. at 882). The adjudicator “must consider the entire range of factors concerning hardship in their totality and determine whether the combination of hardships takes the case beyond those hardships ordinarily associated with deportation.” Id.
The actual hardship associated with an abstract hardship factor such as family separation, economic disadvantage, cultural readjustment, et cetera, differs in nature and severity depending on the unique circumstances of each case, as does the cumulative hardship a qualifying relative experiences as a result of aggregated individual hardships. See, e.g., Matter of Bing Chih Kao and Mei Tsui Lin, 23 I&N Dec. 45, 51 (BIA 2001) (distinguishing Matter of Pilch regarding hardship faced by qualifying relatives on the basis of variations in the length of residence in the United States and the ability to speak the language of the country to which they would relocate).
For example, though family separation has been found to be a common result of inadmissibility or removal, separation from family living in the United States can also be the most important single hardship factor in considering hardship in the aggregate. Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292, 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Contreras-Buenfil v. INS, 712 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1983)); but see Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. at 24 7 (separation of spouse and children from applicant not extreme hardship due to conflicting evidence in the record and because applicant and spouse had been voluntarily separated from one another for 28 years).
Therefore, the AAO considers the totality of the circumstances in determining whether denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative.
nature, recency and seriousness, and the presence of other evidence indicative of an alien’s bad character or undesirability as a permanent resident of this country . . . . The favorable considerations include family ties in the United States, residence of long duration in this country (particularly where the alien began his residency at a young age), evidence of hardship to the alien and his family if he is excluded and deported, service in this country’s Armed Forces, a history of stable employment, the existence of property or business ties, evidence of value and service to the community, evidence of genuine rehabilitation if a criminal record exists, and other evidence attesting to the alien’s good character (e.g., affidavits from family, friends, and responsible community representatives). Id. at 301.
The BIA further states that upon review of the record as a whole, a balancing of the equities and adverse matters must be made to determine whether discretion should be favorably exercised. The equities that the applicant for relief must bring forward to establish that he merits a favorable exercise of administrative discretion will depend in each case on the nature and circumstances of the ground of exclusion sought to be waived and on the presence of any additional adverse matters, and as the negative factors grow more serious, it becomes incumbent upon the applicant to introduce additional offsetting favorable evidence. Id. at 301.
As a result of our efforts, the I-601 waiver was approved and this family now resides together lawfully inside the United States.
If an immigrant waiver applicant meets all other statutory and regulatory requirements of a waiver, the USCIS officer must determine whether to approve the waiver as a matter of discretion.
If the applicant does not meet another statutory requirement of the waiver, USCIS denies the waiver and a discretionary analysis is not necessary.
However, an officer may still include a discretionary analysis if the applicant’s conduct is so egregious that a discretionary denial would be warranted even if the applicant had met the other statutory and regulatory requirements. Adding a discretionary analysis to a denial is considered useful if an appellate body on review disagrees with the officer’s conclusion that the applicant failed to meet the statutory requisites for the waiver.
According to the USCIS Policy Manual up-to-date as of August 23, 2017, meeting the other statutory and regulatory requirements of an immigrant waiver alone does not entitle the applicant to relief. See Reyes-Cornejo v. Holder, 734 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2013). See Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999). See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996).
The discretionary determination is the final step in the adjudication of a waiver application. The applicant bears the burden of proving that he or she merits a favorable exercise of discretion. See Matter of De Lucia, 11 I&N Dec. 565 (BIA 1966). See Matter of T-S-Y-, 7 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1957).
We consider the exercise of discretion by the adjudicating USCIS officer to be an essential part of any waiver approval that my office has obtained on behalf of our clients for the past 15 years. Consequently, I always make sure to include every favorable factor from our client’s lives and backgrounds, that in our experience, have proven significant and pivotal in the approval of immigrant (and non-immigrant waivers) for our clients.
The provisional unlawful presence waiver process allows immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (spouses, children, or parents) who are currently residing in the United States to apply for a provisional waiver while in the United States, provided they meet all eligibility requirements outlined in 8 CFR 212.7(e) and warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.
INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) authorizes the Secretary to waive the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars for individuals seeking admission to the United States as immigrants if they can show that the refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent, and provided that the applicant warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296, 301 (BIA 1996).
Waiver Eligibility • Meeting certain other statutory requirements of the waiver, including a finding of extreme hardship to a qualifying family member, if applicable. See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996) (relating to a criminal waiver under INA 212(h)(1)(B)). See Matter of Marin, 16 I&N Dec. 581 (BIA 1978) (relating to an INA 212(c) waiver). See Matter of Tijam, 22 I&N Dec. 408 (BIA 1998) (relating to a fraud or misrepresentation finding (INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)) and the discretionary waiver under former INA 241(a)(1)(H) [renumbered as INA 237(a)(1)(H) by IIRIRA]).
• Eligibility for waiver of other inadmissibility grounds. Not applicable – Not meeting the statutory requirements of the waiver results in a waiver denial. A discretionary analysis is not necessary.
Family & Community Ties • Family ties to the United States and the closeness of the underlying relationships.
• Hardship to the applicant or to non-qualifying lawful permanent residents (LPRs) or U.S. citizen relatives or employers.
• Length of lawful residence in the United States and status held during that residence, particularly where the applicant began residency at a young age.
• Significant health concerns that affect the qualifying relative.
• Difficulties the qualifying relative would be likely to face if the qualifying relative moves abroad with the applicant due to country conditions, inability to adapt, restrictions on residence, or other factors that may be claimed.
• Honorable service in the U.S. armed forces or other evidence of value and service to the community.
• Property or business ties in the United States. Absence of community ties.
Criminal History & Moral Character (or both) • Respect for law and order, and good moral character, which may be evidenced by affidavits from family, friends, and responsible community representatives.
• Reformation of character and rehabilitation.
• Community service beyond any imposed by the courts.
• Considerable passage of time since deportation or removal. • Moral depravity or criminal tendencies reflected by an ongoing or continuing criminal record, particularly the nature, scope, seriousness, and recent occurrence of criminal activity.
• Repeated or serious violations of immigration laws, which evidence a disregard for U.S. law.
• Lack of reformation of character or rehabilitation.
• Previous instances of fraud or false testimony in dealings with USCIS or any government agency.
• Marriage to a U.S. citizen or LPR for the primary purpose of circumventing immigration laws.
Other Absence of significant undesirable or negative factors. Other indicators of an applicant's bad character and undesirability as a permanent resident of this country.
The officer must weigh the social and humanitarian considerations against the adverse factors present in the applicant’s case. See Matter of De Lucia, 11 I&N Dec. 565 (BIA 1966). See Matter of T-S-Y-, 7 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1957). The approval of a waiver as a matter of discretion depends on whether the favorable factors in the applicant’s case outweigh the unfavorable ones. See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996).
When making a discretionary determination, the officer should review the entire record and give the appropriate weight to each adverse and favorable factor. Once the officer has weighed each factor, the officer should consider all of the factors cumulatively to determine whether the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable ones. If the officer determines that the positive factors outweigh the negative factors, then the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion.
A lengthy and stable marriage is generally a favorable factor in the discretionary analysis. On the other hand, the weight given to any possible hardship to the spouse that may occur upon separation may be diminished if the parties married after the commencement of removal proceedings with knowledge of an impending removal. In particular, if a finding of extreme hardship is a statutory eligibility requirement, the finding of extreme hardship permits, but does not require, a favorable exercise of discretion. Once extreme hardship is found, extreme hardship becomes a factor that weighs in favor of granting relief as a matter of discretion.
In general, when reviewing an applicant’s employment history, an officer may consider the type, length, and stability of the employment. See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996). See Ghassan v. INS, 972 F.2d 631 (5th Cir. 1992).
In general, when reviewing an applicant’s history of physical presence in the United States, the officer may favorably consider residence of long duration in this country, as well as residence in the United States while the applicant was of young age. See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996).
When looking at the applicant’s presence in the United States, the officer should evaluate the nature of the presence. For example, a period of residency during which the applicant was imprisoned may diminish the significance of that period of residency. See Diaz-Resendez v. INS, 960 F.2d 493 (5th Cir. 1992).
The denial would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Douglas v. INS, 28 F.3d 241 (2nd Cir. 1994).
Extraordinary circumstances involve considerations such as national security or foreign policy interests. Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship is substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected as a result of denial of admission, but it does not need to be so severe as to be considered unconscionable. See INA 212(h). See 8 CFR 212.7(d). See Matter of Jean, 23 I&N Dec. 373 (A.G. 2002) (relating to a waiver of inadmissibility granted in connection with INA 209(c), refugee or asylee adjustment of status). Depending on the gravity of the underlying criminal offense, a showing of extraordinary circumstances may still be insufficient to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. See Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2001).
I was contacted by a couple after their I-601 “extreme hardship” waiver application (prepared and filed by another law firm) was deemed insufficient for approval of their I-601 waiver. The waiver applicant from Turkey previously overstayed in the United States by more than one year due to a misunderstanding of how long his authorized period of stay was granted for. He later departed the U.S. due to a family emergency. While abroad, he married his U.S. citizen fiancee and attempted to return to the United States, whereupon he was informed that he was subject to the 10 year unlawful presence bar.
The couple retained our law firm to prepare a thorough response to the Request for Evidence (RFE) issued by the USCIS. We prepared a comprehensive 29 page response to the Request for Evidence (RFE), addressing each of the issues raised by the USCIS and providing supporting documentation to objectively prove every important assertion made in our response.
You have been found inadmissible to the United States under Section 212(a)(9)(8) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because you had previously been unlawfully present in the United States in excess of either 180 days, or for one year or more.
Your application does not include sufficient evidence that your qualifying relative spouse would suffer extreme hardship if you are refused admission to the United States.
Although it appears your qualifying relative spouse is experiencing some type of hardship; we are unable to determine whether or not the hardship rises to the level of extreme hardship. An affidavit is not enough to establish extreme hardship because it lacks sufficient detail, is general in nature, and is absent accompanying documentation. The evidence should explain how the hardship is greater the common results of family separation due to a visa refusal.
An affidavit was not submitted by your qualifying relative spouse. Therefore we do not have enough evidence to establish extreme hardship to your qualifying relative spouse. Provide evidence to explain why it would be an “extreme hardship” for your qualifying relative spouse to be absent your financial support as well as evidence of any emotional problems you are experiencing that would rise to the level of an “extreme hardship” if you were not allowed to relocate to the U.S. ln his affidavit he says that you will struggle on several levels; however, you did not submit any proof of financial obligations, a breakdown of your income and expenses and more detail of the hardship.
Absent from the record is an explanation of how traveling to visit you would rise to the level of an “extreme hardship”.
Note: Extreme Hardship is required for the approval of Form 1-601, not just hardship. Extreme hardship is a hardship that is unusual or beyond that which would normally be expected upon removal or exclusion.
Health – Ongoing or specialized treatment required for a physical or mental condition; availability and quality of such treatment in the country to which removed; anticipated duration of the treatment; chronic vs. acute vs. long or short-term.
Financial Considerations – Future employability; loss due to sale of home or business or termination of a professional practice; decline in standard of living; ability to recoup short-term losses; cost of extraordinary needs such as special education or training for children; cost of care for family members (elderly and sick parents).
Education – Loss of opportunity for higher education; lower quality or limited scope of education options; disruption of current program; requirement to be educated in a foreign language or culture with ensuing loss of time or grade; availability of special requirements, such as training programs or internships in specific fields.
Personal Considerations – Close relatives in the United States and country of removal; separation from spouse/children; ages of involved parties; length of residence and community ties in the United States.
Special Factors – Cultural, language, religious. and ethnic obstacles; valid fears of persecution, physical harm, or injury; social ostracism or stigma; access to social institutions or structures (official or unofficial) for support, guidance, or protection.
1) Please submit a statement explaining in detail the hardships your qualifying relative would experience if you are denied admission to the United States. The statement should explain how the hardship is greater than the common results of family separation due to a visa refusal.
Evidence of monthly expenditures such as mortgage, rental agreement, bills and invoices. etc.
Please note that USCIS will only consider hardships that affect the qualifying relative(s) upon which you are basing your eligibility. If you describe hardship to yourself or another individual, you must also explain how those factors affect the qualifying relative(s).
Your application does not include sufficient evidence that a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted in your case.
3) Please submit a statement explaining the favorable factors of your case and why you believe the favorable factors outweigh unfavorable factors in your case (including the initial inadmissibility finding).
4) Please submit any evidence to support your statement.
However, though hardships may not be extreme when considered abstractly or individually, the Board has made it clear that “[r]elevant factors, though not extreme in themselves, must be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists.” Matter of O-J-O-, 21 I&N Dec. 381, 383 (BIA 1996) (quoting Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. at 882). The adjudicator “must consider the entire range of factors concerning hardship in their totality and determine whether the combination of hardships takes the case beyond those hardships ordinarily associated with deportation.” Id.
As part of our response to the USCIS-issued Request for Evidence (RFE), we demonstrated that the US citizen suffers from both physical and psychiatric disorders that significantly impairs her daily functioning at home, work, and in the community. We also highlighted the fact that she has suffered from psychiatric disorder since childhood, with a long history of anxiety, depression, and substance abuse, which also runs in her family.
We showed how the U.S. citizen is at serious risk of lapsing back into substance abuse without the daily physical, emotional, and psychological support provided by her husband. We also analyzed her household income, expenses, and debt, and showed the financial disaster she would suffer should she be forced to relocate to her husband’s home country of Turkey; or alternatively, remain in the U.S. without her spouse and be subject to the inevitable consequences of her worsening psychological and physical health without his daily support. We also presented a detailed country conditions report of Turkey, demonstrating how the specific circumstances of our client’s health, financial status, and background would be impacted by her possible re-location to Turkey.
As a result of our efforts in responding to a very difficult Request for Evidence (RFE), this I-601 waiver was approved and the couple now reside lawfully inside the U.S.
Our office recently received approval of the I-601A Provisional Waiver for our client who is married to a U.S. citizen spouse. We were contacted after the U.S. citizen petitioner filed the I-130 Petition for Immediate Relative and was awaiting approval of the immigrant visa petition by the USCIS.
During this preliminary processing period, we provided our clients with our Waiver Worksheets, which contains a comprehensive set of important questions to answer and supporting documents to gather, based on our 14+ years of experience preparing winning I-601, I-212, 212(d)(3), and other immigration waivers on behalf of our clients.
Our office subsequently drafted and submitted the I-601A Provisional Waiver application package which included: a complete set of USCIS forms requesting consideration for the I-601A Provisional Waiver; a 27 page waiver statement detailing relevant case law favorable to my client’s situation and presenting the extreme hardships that applied to this case; and a comprehensive collection of exhibits to prove the extreme hardships being presented. Throughout the waiver, we incorporated an eloquent presentation of the couple’s life story that highlighted the unique facets of this case, personalized their plight, and showed why the U.S. citizen would be particularly vulnerable to the hardships triggered by separation or relocation.
Be an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen (not a preference category immigrant who has a visa available). An immediate relative is an individual who is the spouse, child or parent of a U.S. citizen.
Have an approved Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, or Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant.
Have a pending immigrant visa case with the Dept. of State for the approved immediate relative petition and have paid the Dept. of State immigrant visa processing fee.
Be able to demonstrate that refusal of your admission to the United States will cause extreme hardship to your U.S. citizen spouse or parent.
Be physically present in the United States to file your application for a provisional unlawful presence waiver and provide biometrics.
Not have been scheduled for an immigrant visa interview by Dept. of State before January 3, 2013.
You are inadmissible ONLY for unlawful presence in the United States for more than 180 days but less than 1 year during a single stay (INA Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I)), or unlawful presence in the United States for 1 year or more during a single stay (INA Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).
the U.S. citizen wife cannot not endure long-term separation from her spouse, were he required to leave the U.S., because she has become medically, psychologically, and emotionally dependent on him.
the U.S. citizen wife suffers from a variety of physical ailments and psychological disorders, that would be exacerbated by the stress of separation or relocation.
the U.S. citizen wife would be in danger of defaulting on her student loan and other debt payments should her physical and psychological state deteriorate further.
the U.S. citizen wife would live in fear of violent assault in the country of her husband should she be forced to re-locate to his home country.
the U.S. citizen wife would be wholly separated from her ill parents and family in the U.S.
It should be noted that the way extreme hardships are presented, discussed, and proven often “make or break” an I-601A Provisional Waiver Application. Extreme hardships should be highlighted and elaborated upon in a realistic and credible manner. Every hardship should also be shown to exist and possibly grow worse in two scenarios: if the qualifying relative is separated from the applicant and if the qualifying relative has to re-locate to another country in order to be with the applicant. Every hardship statement made should be proven with objective evidence that is included in a comprehensive collection of Exhibits.
As a result of the comprehensive package we prepared and submitted on behalf of our client, this I-601A Provisional Waiver application was approved.
The provisional unlawful presence waiver (“provisional waiver”) process allows certain individuals who are present in the United States to request from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) a provisional waiver of these grounds of inadmissibility before departing the United States for consular processing of their immigrant visas – rather than applying for a waiver abroad after their immigrant visa interviews using the Form I-601, Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (“Form I-601 waiver process”).
The provisional waiver process is designed to encourage unlawfully present individuals to leave the United States, attend their immigrant visa interviews, and return to the United States legally to reunite with their U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) family members.
Having an approved provisional waiver helps facilitate immigrant visa issuance at DOS, streamlines both the waiver and the immigrant visa processes, and reduces the time that applicants are separated from their U.S. citizen or LPR family members, thus promoting family unity.
Generally, individuals who are in the United States and seeking lawful permanent resident (LPR) status must either obtain an immigrant visa abroad through what is known as “consular processing” with the Department of State (DOS) or apply to adjust their immigration status to that of an LPR in the United States, if eligible. Individuals present in the United States without having been inspected and admitted or paroled are typically ineligible to adjust their status in the United States.
To obtain LPR status, such individuals must leave the United States for immigrant visa processing at a U.S. Embassy or consulate abroad. But because these individuals are present in the United States without having been inspected and admitted or paroled, their departures may trigger a ground of inadmissibility based on the accrual of unlawful presence in the United States under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i).
Under subclause (I) of this provision, an individual who has been unlawfully present in the United States for more than 180 days but less than one year, and who then departs voluntarily from the United States before the commencement of removal proceedings, is inadmissible for 3 years from the date of departure. See INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(I).
Under subclause (II), an individual who has been unlawfully present in the United States for one year or more and then departs the United States (before, during, or after removal proceedings), is inadmissible for 10 years from the date of the departure. See INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).
These “3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars” do not take effect unless and until the individual departs from the United States. See, e.g., Matter of Rodarte-Roman, 23 I. & N. Dec. 905 (BIA 2006).
The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) may waive this ground of inadmissibility for an individual who can demonstrate that the refusal of his or her admission to the United States would result in extreme hardship to his or her U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent. See INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v).
Prior to the creation of the provisional waiver process in 2013, any individual who was seeking an immigrant visa and became inadmissible under the 3- or 10-year unlawful presence bar upon departure from the United States, could apply for a waiver of such inadmissibility from DHS by filing an Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, Form I-601, with USCIS, but only after having attended the consular immigrant visa interview abroad. Those who applied for waivers under this “Form I-601 waiver process” were effectively required to remain abroad for at least several months while USCIS adjudicated their waiver applications.
For some individuals, the Form I-601 waiver process led to lengthy separations of immigrant visa applicants from their family members, causing some U.S. citizens and LPRs to experience the significant emotional and financial hardships that Congress aimed to avoid when it authorized the waiver. See INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) (providing for an inadmissibility waiver, “if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the refusal of admission to such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such alien”).
For this reason, many relatives of U.S. citizens and LPRs who are eligible to obtain LPR status may be reluctant to travel abroad to seek immigrant visas and obtain such status. The Form I-601 waiver process also created processing inefficiencies for both USCIS and DOS through repeated interagency communication and through multiple consular appointments or interviews.
On July 22, 2015, DHS proposed to expand the class of individuals who may be eligible for provisional waivers beyond certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to all statutorily eligible individuals regardless of their immigrant visa classification. DHS also proposed to expand the class of individuals who could obtain provisional waivers, consistent with the statutory waiver authority, by permitting consideration of extreme hardship not only to U.S. citizen spouses or parents, but also to LPR spouses or parents.
1) Clarifying that all individuals seeking provisional waivers, including those in removal proceedings before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), must file applications for provisional waivers with USCIS.
2) Allowing individuals to apply for provisional waivers even if USCIS has a reason to believe that they may be subject to other grounds of inadmissibility.
3) Eliminating the proposed temporal limitations that would have restricted eligibility for provisional waivers based on DOS visa interview scheduling.
4) Allowing individuals with final orders of removal, exclusion, or deportation to be eligible for provisional waivers provided that they have already applied for, and USCIS has approved, an Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal, Form I-212.
5) Clarifying that DHS must have actually reinstated a removal, deportation, or exclusion order in order for an individual who has returned to the United States unlawfully after removal to be ineligible for a provisional waiver on that basis.
In addition, DHS made several technical and non-substantive changes.
Newly eligible provisional waiver applicants and their U.S. citizen or LPR family members will benefit from this rule. Those applying for provisional waivers will receive advance notice of USCIS’ decision to provisionally waive their 3- or 10-year unlawful presence bar before they leave the United States for their immigrant visa interview abroad. This offers applicants and their family members the certainty of knowing that the applicants have been provisionally approved for waivers of the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars before departing from the United States.
Individuals with approved provisional waivers may experience shortened periods of separation from their family members living in the United States while they pursue issuance of immigrant visas abroad, thus reducing any related financial and emotional strains on the families.
The Secretary is authorized to waive the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars for individuals seeking admission to the United States as immigrants if they can show that the refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent, and provided that the applicant warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. See INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v).
With this final rule, DHS is allowing all individuals who are statutorily eligible for an immigrant visa and who meet the legal requirements for a waiver under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), to seek a provisional waiver in accordance with new 8 CFR 212.7(e). Consistent with the current provisional waiver process, provisional waivers are available only to those who are present in the United States, who must apply for immigrant visas at U.S. embassies or consulates abroad, and who at the time of the immigrant visa interview may be inadmissible based on the accrual of unlawful presence under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i).
DHS can only expand the pool of individuals eligible for this process to those who fall within one of the current statutory immigrant visa classifications and who meet the requirements for the unlawful presence waiver described in INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v). DHS cannot expand eligibility to those who are not statutorily eligible for such waivers under current law.
Similarly, DHS cannot change who is statutorily eligible to adjust status in the United States. Intending immigrants who are present in the United States but ineligible to adjust status must depart the United States and obtain their immigrant visas through consular processing abroad; approval of a provisional waiver does not change this requirement. See INA sections 104, 202(a)(1)(B), 211, 221, 222 and 245; 8 U.S.C. 1104, 1152(a)(1)(B), 1181, 1201, 1202, and 1255. See generally 8 CFR part 245; 22 CFR part 42.
To clarify, in the proposed rule, DHS sought to include all beneficiaries of approved immigrant visa petitions who are statutorily eligible for a waiver of the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars, regardless of age, marital status, or immigration status. Individuals with approved immigrant visa petitions, including sons and daughters (married or unmarried) of U.S. citizens, as well as those who have been selected to participate in the Diversity Visa program, may participate in the provisional waiver process provided they meet the requirements stated in 8 CFR 212.7(e). Consistent with its statutory authority under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), DHS will no longer limit the provisional waiver process to certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.
DHS has decided to eliminate the reason-to-believe standard as a basis for denying provisional waiver applications. Accordingly, when adjudicating such applications, USCIS will only consider whether extreme hardship has been established and whether the applicant warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.
However, although this final rule eliminates the reason-to believe standard, the final rule retains the provision that provides for the automatic revocation of an approved provisional waiver application if the DOS consular officer ultimately determines that the applicant is ineligible for the immigrant visa based on other grounds of inadmissibility. See 8 CFR 212.7(e)(14)(i).
DHS thus cautions and reminds individuals that even if USCIS approves a provisional waiver application, DOS may still find the applicant inadmissible on other grounds at the time of the immigrant visa interview. If DOS finds the applicant ineligible for the immigrant visa or inadmissible on grounds other than unlawful presence, the approval of the provisional waiver application is automatically revoked. In such cases, the individual may again apply for a waiver of the unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility, in combination with any other waivable grounds of inadmissibility, by using the Form I-601 waiver process.
As in all discretionary matters, DHS also has the authority to deny provisional waiver applications as a matter of discretion even if the applicant satisfies the eligibility criteria. See 8 CFR 212.7(e)(2)(i). Additionally, USCIS may reopen and reconsider its decision to approve or deny a provisional waiver before or after the waiver becomes effective if it is determined that the decision was made in error. See 8 CFR 212.7(e)(13) and 8 CFR 212.7(a)(4)(v).
As has always been the case, DHS will continue to uphold the integrity and security of the provisional waiver process by conducting full background and security checks to assess whether an individual may be a threat to national security or public safety. If the background check or the individual’s immigration file reveals derogatory information, including a criminal record, USCIS will analyze the significance of the information and may deny the provisional waiver application as a matter of discretion.
Finally, the extreme hardship and discretionary eligibility assessments made during a provisional waiver adjudication could be impacted by additional grounds of inadmissibility and other information that was not known and therefore not considered during the adjudication.
Accordingly, USCIS is not bound by these determinations when adjudicating subsequent applications filed by the same applicant, such as an application filed to waive grounds of inadmissibility, including a waiver of the unlawful presence grounds of inadmissibility. In other words, because separate inadmissibility grounds and material information not before USCIS at the time of adjudication may alter the totality of the circumstances present in an individual’s case, a prior determination that an applicant’s U.S. citizen or LPR spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the applicant were refused admission (and that the applicant merits a provisional waiver as a matter of discretion) does not dictate that USCIS must make the same determination in the future, although the factors and circumstances underlying the prior decision may be taken into account when reviewing the cases under the totality of the circumstances.
3. DHS is eliminating the restrictions based on the date that DOS acted to schedule the immigrant visa interview.
USCIS will adjust its processing of petitions and applications so that neither DOS nor USCIS will be adversely affected by the elimination of this restriction. Please note, however, that elimination of these date restrictions does not alter other laws and regulations relating to the availability of immigrant visas. Applicants will still be unable to obtain immigrant visas until an immigrant visa number is available based on the applicant’s priority date. Applicants will need to act promptly, once DOS notifies them that they can file their immigrant visa application. If applicants do not apply within one year of this notice, DOS has authority to terminate their registration for an immigrant visa. See INA section 203(g), 8 U.S.C. 1153(g); see also 22 CFR 42.8(a). That action will also result in automatic revocation of the approval of the related immigrant visa petition. 8 CFR 205.1(a)(1).
In such a situation, applicants will have two options for continuing to pursue a provisional waiver. One option is for an applicant to ask DOS to reinstate the registration pursuant to 22 C.F.R. 42.83(d). If DOS reinstates the registration, approval of the immigrant visa petition is also reinstated. Once such an applicant has paid the immigrant visa processing fee for the related immigrant visa application, the applicant can apply for a provisional waiver. A second option is for the relevant immigrant visa petitioner to file a new immigrant visa petition with USCIS. If USCIS approves the new immigrant visa petition, the beneficiary could then apply for the provisional waiver after paying the immigrant visa processing fee based on the new petition if otherwise eligible.
ranges of discretionary measures. To promote docket efficiency and to ensure that finite enforcement resources are used effectively, ICE carefully reviews cases pending before the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to ensure that all cases align with the agency’s enforcement and removal policies. As such, once an NTA is issued, ICE attorneys are directed to review the case, at the earliest opportunity, for the potential exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) likewise instructs its immigration judges to use available docketing tools to ensure fair and timely resolution of cases, and to ask ICE attorneys at master calendar hearings whether ICE is seeking dismissal or administrative closure of a case. In general, those who are low priorities for removal and are otherwise eligible for LPR status may be able to apply for provisional waivers. Among other things, ICE may agree to administratively close immigration proceedings for individuals who are eligible to pursue a provisional waiver and are not currently considered a DHS enforcement priority. ICE also works to facilitate, as appropriate, the timely termination or dismissal of administratively closed removal proceedings once USCIS approves a provisional waiver.
DHS believes the aforementioned steps being undertaken by ICE and EOIR to determine whether cases should be administratively closed effectively balances the commenters’ provisional waiver eligibility concerns and agency resources in considering the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Consequently, this rule has not changed the provisional waiver process and will not permit individuals in active removal proceedings to apply for or receive provisional waivers, unless their cases are administratively closed. The Department believes that current processes provide ample opportunity for eligible applicants to seek a provisional waiver, while improving the allocation of government resources and ensuring national security, public safety, and border security.
As a preliminary matter, DHS notes that requiring the filing of separate Forms I-601A and I-212 simply reflects the fact that they are intended to address two separate grounds of inadmissibility, each with different waiver eligibility requirements. In response to the comments, however, DHS has amended the rule to allow individuals with final orders of removal, deportation, or exclusion to apply for provisional waivers if they have filed a Form I- 212 application seeking consent to reapply for admission and such an application has been conditionally approved.
Anyone who departs the United States while a final order is outstanding is considered to have executed that order. See INA section 101(g), 8 U.S.C. 1101(g); 8 CFR 241.7. The execution of such an order renders the individual inadmissible to the United States for a period of 5-20 years under INA section 212(a)(9)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A). Certain individuals, however, may seek consent to reapply for admission to the United States before the period of inadmissibility has expired. See INA section 212(a)(9)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A)(iii).
DHS regulations provide a process for those in the United States to apply for such consent by filing a Form I-212 application before departing the United States. See 8 CFR 212.2(j). As with the provisional waiver process, the pre-departure approval of a Form I-212 application is conditioned on the applicant subsequently departing the United States.
Thus, if an individual who is inadmissible under INA section 212(a)(9)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A), obtains a conditional approval of his or her Form I-212 application while in the United States and thereafter departs to attend the immigrant visa interview abroad, he or she generally is no longer inadmissible under that section at the time of the immigrant visa interview and can be issued an immigrant visa.
Given that an applicant still has to demonstrate visa eligibility, including admissibility, at the time of the immigrant visa interview and that DHS has decided to eliminate the reason-to-believe standard, the Department believes the goals of the provisional waiver process are supported by making it available to those with final orders only if they already have conditionally approved a Form I-212 application. The final rule thus extends eligibility for provisional waivers to such individuals. See 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(iv).
Such an individual, however, must have the conditionally approved Form I-212 application at the time of filing the provisional waiver application. See 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(iv). USCIS will deny a provisional waiver application if the applicant’s Form I-212 application has not yet been conditionally approved at the time the individual files his or her provisional waiver application. Additionally, if during the immigrant visa interview the consular officer finds that the applicant is inadmissible on other grounds that have not been waived, the approved provisional waiver will be automatically revoked. See 8 CFR 212.7(e)(14)(i).
Finally, DHS notes that approval of Forms I-601A and I-212 does not waive inadmissibility under INA section 212(a)(9)(C), 8 U.S.C 1182(a)(9)(C), for having returned to the United States without inspection and admission or parole after a prior removal or prior unlawful presence. See INA section 212(a)(9)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C 1182(a)(9)(C)(ii); Matter of Briones, 24 I&N Dec. 355 (BIA 2007); Matter of Torres-Garcia, 23 I&N Dec. 866 (BIA 2006).
DHS has determined that individuals granted voluntary departure will not be eligible for provisional waivers. First, if an individual obtains voluntary departure while in removal proceedings, the immigration judge is required by law to enter an alternate order of removal. See 8 CFR 1240.26(d). DHS cannot execute the alternate order of removal during the voluntary departure period because such an order is not yet in effect. But if the individual does not depart as required under the order of voluntary departure, the alternate order of removal automatically becomes fully effective without any additional proceeding. See 8 CFR 1240.26(d). Thus, an individual who fails to leave as required under a grant of voluntary departure will have an administratively final order of removal, and will thus be ineligible for a provisional waiver. See INA section 240B(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d)(1); 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(iv).
Under current law, removal proceedings for such individuals are considered to have ended when the grant of voluntary departure, with an alternate removal order, becomes administratively final. See INA sections 101(a)(47), 240(c)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(47), 1229(a)(c)(1)(A); 8 CFR 241.1, 1003.39, 1241.1; Matter of Shih, 20 I&N Dec. 697 (BIA 1993).
Second, a fundamental premise for a grant of voluntary departure is that the individual who is granted voluntary departure intends to leave the United States as required. See INA section 240B(b)(1)(D), 8 U.S.C. 1229c(b)(1)(D); Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1, 18 (2008). Allowing an individual whose voluntary departure period has not expired to apply for a provisional waiver would suggest that the individual is excused from complying with the order of voluntary departure. This result would contradict the purpose of voluntary departure— allowing the subject to leave promptly without incurring the future inadmissibility that results from removal. For these reasons, DHS did not modify the rule to allow those with grants of voluntary departure to apply for provisional waivers.
We recently received approval of the I-601 “Extreme Hardship” Waiver for the Peruvian wife of a U.S. citizen who was found to be inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), for having been unlawfully present in the United States for more than one year before departing the U.S. for her home country of Peru.
The Attorney General [now Secretary of Homeland Security] has sole discretion to waive clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse or son or daughter of a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if it is established . . . that the refusal of admission to such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such alien.
A waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act is dependent on a showing that the bar to admission imposes extreme hardship on a qualifying relative, which includes the U.S. citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of the applicant. Hardship to the applicant and his children can be considered only insofar as it results in hardship to a qualifying relative. The applicant’s U.S. citizen spouse is the only qualifying relative in this case. If extreme hardship to a qualifying relative is established, the applicant is statutorily eligible for a waiver, and USCIS then assesses whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296, 301 (BIA 1996).
Extreme hardship is “not a definable term of fixed and inflexible content or meaning,” but “necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case: Matter of Hwang, 10 I&N Dec. 448, 451 (BIA 1964). In Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, the Board provided a list of factors it deemed relevant in determining whether an alien has established extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565 (BIA 1999). The factors include the presence of a lawful permanent resident or United States citizen spouse or parent in this country; the qualifying relative’s family ties outside the United States; the conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties in such countries; the financial impact of departure from this country; and significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate. Id. The Board added that not all of the foregoing factors need be analyzed in any given case and emphasized that the list of factors was not exclusive. Id. at 566.
The Board has also held that the common or typical results of removal and inadmissibility do not constitute extreme hardship, and has listed certain individual hardship factors considered common rather than extreme. These factors include: economic disadvantage, loss of current employment, inability to maintain one’s present standard of living, inability to pursue a chosen profession, separation from family members, severing community ties, cultural readjustment after living in the United States for many years, cultural adjustment of qualifying relatives who have never lived outside the United States, inferior economic and educational opportunities in the foreign country, or inferior medical facilities in the foreign country. See generally Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. at 568; Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627, 632-33 (BIA 1996); Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880, 883 (BIA 1994); Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. 245,246-47 (Comm’r 1 984); Matter of Kim, 15 I&N Dec. 88, 89-90 (BIA 1974); Matter of Shaughnessy, 12 I&N Dec. 810, 813 (BIA 1968).
However, though hardships may not be extreme when considered abstractly or individually, the Board has made it clear that “[r]elevant factors, though not extreme in themselves, must be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists.” Matter of O-J-O, 21 I&N Dec. 381, 383 (BIA 1996) (quoting Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. at 882). The adjudicator “must consider the entire range of factors concerning hardship in their totality and determine whether the combination of hardships takes the case beyond those hardships ordinarily associated with deportation.” Id.
The actual hardship associated with an abstract hardship factor such as family separation, economic disadvantage, cultural readjustment, etcetera, differs in nature and severity depending on the unique circumstances of each case, as does the cumulative hardship a qualifying relative experiences as a result of aggregated individual hardships. See, e.g., Matter of Bing Chih Kao and Mei Twi Lin, 23 I&N Dec. 45, 51 (BIA 2001) (distinguishing Matter of Pilch regarding hardship faced by qualifying relatives on the basis of variations in the length of residence in the United States and the ability to speak the language of the country to which they would relocate). For example, though family separation has been found to be a common result of inadmissibility or removal, separation from family living in the United States can also be the most important single hardship factor in considering hardship in the aggregate. See Salcido-Salcido, 138 F.3d 1292, 1293 (quoting Contreras-Buenfil v. INS, 712 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1983)); but see Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. at 247 (separation of spouse and children from applicant not extreme hardship due to conflicting evidence in the record and because applicant and spouse had been voluntarily separated from one another for 28 years).
In order to secure approval of this I-601 “unlawful presence” waiver, we prepared a comprehensive 30-page legal memorandum (the I-601 “waiver letter”) that includes in-depth discussion of waiver case law that supports approval of our client’s case.
As we do with all of our waiver cases, we initially provided a Waiver Worksheet to our clients which contains a thorough list of questions for our clients answer and return to us. The answers provided by our clients help us identify the most important hardship and discretionary factors to be presented to the USCIS in our waiver package.
Our Waiver Worksheet also contains a checklist of suggested documents for our clients to gather. The questions on our Waiver Worksheet and the checklist of supporting documents is regularly updated and reflects our knowledge of the best ways to secure approval of I-601, I-212, and 212(d)(3) waivers. Our knowledge in the specialized field of immigration waivers for grounds of inadmissibility has been earned through over 12 years of successfully obtaining waiver approvals on behalf of our clients located throughout the world.
In this case, we also performed detailed country conditions research to demonstrate that the U.S. citizen husband would suffer a variety of hardships if he is forced to move to Peru to reside with his wife. We cited respected sources and journals such as Peru Economic Outlook; The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom; The World Bank Group; and the United States Department of State – Bureau of Consular Officers, to establish the financial, medical, and physical hardships and risks the U.S. citizen husband and his wife would be subject toif they were forced to reside in Peru due to the applicant’s inadmissibility. We particularly stressed the physical dangers inherent in residing long-term in Peru since the Peruvian wife has already been the victim of kidnapping.
The U.S. citizen husband has joint-custody over a son who resides in the United States. He makes regularl child support payments and maintains a close relationship with his child. Re-location to Peru would endanger our client’s ability to make child support payments and effectively sever the father-son relationship for the severe detriment of both parties.
The U.S. citizen husband carries significant financial debt, recently lost his job, and suffers from medical conditions that prevent him from continuing with the physical labor inherent in his chosen occupation. He requires his wife’s daily support and financial assistance in the United States so that he can transition to a different career given his vulnerable physical condition.
The U.S. citizen husband is suffering crippling levels of anxiety during his wife’s absence from the United States. His wife’s kidnapping (which occurred several years ago when she last resided in Peru) makes him especially worried for her safety.
As a result of the I-601 “unlawful presence” waiver package we prepared on behalf of our clients, this waiver application was approved by the USCIS. The Peruvian wife can now lawfully residence inside the United States as a U.S. lawful permanent resident, and apply for naturalization to U.S. citizenship in about 3 years.
Our office received approval of the I-601A Provisional Waiver for a Nicaraguan applicant married to a U.S. citizen wife. As part of the Provisional Waiver process, we first provided our clients with a detailed letter going over every step of the immigrant visa process (including a checklist of supporting documents to gather and return to our office). We then expeditiously prepared the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative and filed it with the USCIS on behalf of our clients.
The I-130 Petition for Alien Relative was approved by the USCIS approximately 5 months after submission by our office. About 1 month after USCIS approval of the I-130 Petition, the National Visa Center received the approved immigrant visa case from the USCIS and issued its Immigrant Visa and Affidavit of Support fee bills. After payment of the Immigrant Visa fee by the applicant, our office submitted the I-601 Provisional Waiver application package which included: a complete set of USCIS forms requesting consideration for the I-601A Provisional Waiver; a 31 page waiver statement detailing relevant case law favorable to my client’s situation and presenting the extreme hardships that applied to this case; and a comprehensive collection of exhibits to prove the extreme hardships being presented.
Approval of the I-601 Provisional Waiver application was received just 4 months after submission by our office.
The Nicaraguan husband has extensive familial ties in the United States including his daughter, his father, his step-mother, his paternal grandmother, his uncles, and several nephews and nieces, all of whom reside legally in the U.S.
The U.S. citizen wife is responsible for the daily living and medical needs of her ill mother, who suffers from severe hearing loss and has a long history of mental illness. She also assists her mother financially as best she can.
The married couple have a significant amount of debt and the Nicaraguan husband’s monthly income constitutes over 50% of the family’s total monthly income. Without the money the husband earns, the U.S. citizen wife would default on her mortgage, student loans, and credit card debt, as well as on the secured loans on their car and house.
The U.S. citizen wife has a history of serious illness that required surgery in the past. She needs regular check-ups as her illness may return.
The Nicaraguan husband has no criminal record, volunteers at his local church, and has a history of productive employment in the U.S.
The psychological state of the U.S. citizen wife is fragile and she risks serious mental decompensation and psychotic symptoms should she be separated from husband.
The married couple have an infant daughter who they raise together who would also be impacted emotionally by re-location or separation from her father.
Re-location of the family to Nicaragua would place the U.S. citizen wife (and their daughter) at risk of psychological distress, financial collapse, and victimization to crime. It would seroiusly endanger the well-being and lives of three U.S. citizens.
As a result of the comprehensive package we prepared and submitted on behalf of the Applicant, this I-601A Provisional Waiver application was approved.
Our office received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for a Romanian client who is subject to the 10 year unlawful presence bar under INA Section 212(a)(9)(B)(II) and a life-time bar for fraud/misrepresentation under INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i).
Any alien who has been unlawfully present in the United States for one year or more, and who again seeks admission within 10 years of the date of such alien’s departure or removal from the United States is inadmissible.
Our client entered the U.S. lawfully on a valid non-immigrant visa and overstayed his authorized period of stay by over 1 year before voluntarily departing back to his home country of Romania. During his stay inside the United States, he met and married his U.S. citizen wife. He eventually re-located to the United Kingdom, where his U.S. citizen wife joined him due to his inadmissibility to the U.S.. The couple gave birth to a U.S. citizen child who resides with them in London. The couple contacted my office after the Romanian husband was denied at his immigrant visa interview at the U.S. embassy in London due to being subject to the 10 year unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility and life-time bar fraud/misrepresentation.
An I-601 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility requires a showing that the applicant’s U.S. citizen spouse or parent would suffer “extreme hardship” if the applicant is refused admission into the United States. A US citizen fiancé(e) may also be a qualifying relative for purposes of the waiver according to 9 FAM 41.81 N9.3(a) and 8 CFR 212.7(a)(1)(i).
We prepared a comprehensive I-601 waiver application including a 29 page legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of our clients’ lives met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship.” We also thoroughly discussed and presented evidence of the U.S. citizen wife’s mother’s medical condition, as well as the precarious physical state of the U.S. citizen wife’s grandparents. The condition of the U.S. citizen wife’s mother and grand-parents were carefully presented to demonstrate their intimate link and relevance to the psychological hardship being faced by the qualifying relative (the U.S. citizen wife).
This case was also challenging because the U.S. citizen wife and her Romanian husband were residing in London, United Kingdom, together with their child who was born outside the U.S. We had to overcome the presumption that a family already residing abroad in a major metropolis such as London has adjusted to life abroad already and is not suffering extreme hardship. However, due to our experience handling similar cases over the past 12+ years, we anticipated this issue and presented an array of financial, psychological, and other hardship evidence to overcome such a presumption.
A specific discussion of Attachment theory (based on the idea that the bond between an infant and his or her primary caregiver is the crucial and primary influence infant development).
We often cite credible studies and reports from a variety of fields to support our I-601 and I-212 waiver applications. In this case, we referenced a World Health Organization’s study on attachment and early childhood development, which states that loss of a primary caregiver can substantially harm a young child’s psychological and emotional development.
Medical records of the U.S. citizen wife’s grand-parents.
As a result of our efforts, our client was approved for the I-601 Waiver and consequently, this family of mother, father, and son will be able to live in the United States and provide support to close U.S. citizen relatives who are in need.
Our office received approval of the I-601 Application of Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility for an Indian client who was subject to the 10 year “unlawful presence” ground of inadmissibility under INA Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).
This is a somewhat unique case because both the husband and wife reside in Australia on temporary visas. This made preparation of an effective I-601 waiver more challenging, as we needed to demonstrate that the U.S. citizen wife is presently suffering extreme hardship even while living together with her husband abroad (in a developed country such as Australia).
Thus, a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act is dependent on a showing that the bar to admission imposes extreme hardship on a qualifying relative, which includes the U.S. citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of the applicant.
If extreme hardship to a qualifying relative is established, the applicant is statutorily eligible for a waiver, and USCIS then assesses whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296, 301 (BIA 1996).
significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate. Id.
The Board added that not all of the foregoing factors need be analyzed in any given case and emphasized that the list of factors was not exclusive. Id. at 566.
inferior medical facilities in the foreign country.
See generally Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. at 568; Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627, 632-33 (BIA 1996); Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880, 883 (BIA 1994); Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. 245, 246-47 (Comm’r 1984); Matter of Kim, 15 I&N Dec. 88, 89-90 (BIA 1974); Matter of Shaughnessy, 12 I&N Dec. 810, 813 (BIA 1968).
The actual hardship associated with an abstract hardship factor such as family separation, economic disadvantage, cultural readjustment, etcetera, differs in nature and severity depending on the unique circumstances of each case, as does the cumulative hardship a qualifying relative experiences as a result of aggregated individual hardships. See, e.g., Matter of Bing Chih Kao and Mei Tsui Lin, 23 I&N Dec. 45, 51 (BIA 2001) (distinguishing Matter of Pilch regarding hardship faced by qualifying relatives on the basis of variations in the length of residence in the United States and the ability to speak the language of the country to which they would relocate).
For example, though family separation has been found to be a common result of inadmissibility or removal, separation from family living in the United States can also be the most important single hardship factor in considering hardship in the aggregate. See Salcido-Salcido v. I.N.S., 138 F.3d 1292, 1293 (9th Cir. 1998 (quoting Contreras-Buenfil v. INS, 712 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1983)); but see Matter of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. at 24 7 (separation of spouse and children from applicant not extreme hardship due to conflicting evidence in the record and because applicant and spouse had been voluntarily separated from one another for 28 years).
In support of this couple’s I-601 waiver application, my office prepared a comprehensive 28-page legal brief going over how the facts and circumstances of the couple’s situation met the legal standards used to define “extreme hardship.” We also discussed and presented special evidence of the hardships the U.S. citizen wife would suffer in both Australia AND India (the home country of the foreign husband). While this significantly increased the scope of the waiver, we believe demonstrating all of the hardships present in every realistic scenario of re-location (in this case, living in Australia or India) makes for a far more effective and successful waiver application.
As a result of our efforts, our client was approved for the I-601 waiver and this married couple can now return to the country to lawfully reside together in the U.S.

References: § 1182
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1182
 v. 
 v. 
 v.