Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 1 of 27
AAO WAIVER DECISIONS USING THE NEW
CITATION FORMAT AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 20...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 2 of 27
Office Director's decision on the Form
I-290B.
SEP102015_01H4212.pdf Matt...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 3 of 27
that she should be found to be
inadmissible under section
212(a)(6)(C)(ii...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 4 of 27
section 212(a)(9)(C) of the Act. Decision
of the Director, dated March 26...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 5 of 27
extreme hardship should she remain in
the United States without him.
Appl...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 6 of 27
States and the record does indicate that
the Applicant has been rehabilit...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 7 of 27
Field Office Director, dated April 15,
2015. ……..
The Applicant was convi...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 8 of 27
bodily harm to another person.
However, we find that as the minimal
condu...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 9 of 27
SEP032015_02H2212.pdf Matter of E-M-R-, ID# 10579 (AAO Sept. 3,
2015)
MOT...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 10 of 27
a misrepresentation must be made
with knowledge of its falsity. 7 I&N
De...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 11 of 27
turpitude and claims that the statute
under which he was convicted does ...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 12 of 27
SEP112015_01H2212.pdf Matter of M-I-, ID# 10606 (AAO Sept. 11,
2015)
APP...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 13 of 27
favorable exercise of the Secretary's
discretion is warranted.
Applicati...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 14 of 27
Lozada the motion "should reflect" whether a
bar complaint has been file...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 15 of 27
In application proceedings, it is the
applicant's burden to establish
el...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 16 of 27
extreme hardship to a qualifying family
member, no purpose would be serv...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 17 of 27
SEP042015_01H5212.pdf Matter of A-B-, ID# 12351 (AAO Sept. 4,
2015)
APPE...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 18 of 27
purpose would be served in examining
the hardship to the Applicant's spo...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 19 of 27
pursuant to section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II)
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 20 of 27
individual must seek to procure, have
sought to procure or have procured...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 21 of 27
with an application for visa or other
documents, or for entry into the U...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 22 of 27
U.S.C. § 1182(i). The Acting District
Director, Philadelphia, Pennsylvan...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 23 of 27
order to reside in the United States with
his U.S. citizen spouse and ch...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 24 of 27
Department of State, Bureau of
Consular Affairs - Ghana, dated July
18, ...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 25 of 27
husband; and that she was afraid to
disobey the plans her husband made f...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 26 of 27
SEP152015_01H5212.pdf Matter of P-P-, ID# 10598 (AAO Sept. 15,
2015)
APP...
CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 27 of 27
an immigration judge, but she did not
leave the United States. The Appli...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

AAO WAIVER DECISIONS USING THE NEW CITATION FORMAT AS OF SEPTEMBER 30th 2015

588 views

Published on

AAO WAIVER DECISIONS USING THE NEW CITATION FORMAT AS OF SEPTEMBER 30th 2015

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

AAO WAIVER DECISIONS USING THE NEW CITATION FORMAT AS OF SEPTEMBER 30th 2015

  1. 1. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 1 of 27 AAO WAIVER DECISIONS USING THE NEW CITATION FORMAT AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 20151 Compiled by Joseph P. Whalen NEW FORMAT I-212 & I-601 WAIVER DECISIONS FROM AAO TO DATE Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal (I-212) HYPERLINK CITE AS: RESULT/COMMENTS SEP082015_01H4212.pdf Matter of A-C-C-J-, ID# 13200 (AAO Sept. 8, 2015) APPEAL OF HARLINGEN FIELD OFFICE DECISION SUMMARILY DISMISSED The Applicant did not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Acting Field 1 Although AAO has adopted a specific citation format for its Non-Precedent Administrative Decisions, we are still going to need to find them online. That means we are still going to need the posted filename hyperlink. The new format became a reality as of September 1, 2015.1 Until the agency presents an index or something, I offer this.
  2. 2. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 2 of 27 Office Director's decision on the Form I-290B. SEP102015_01H4212.pdf Matter of E-N-D-C-, ID# 13326 (AAO Sept. 10, 20 15) MOTION OF AAO DECISION DENIED Applicant is currently statutorily ineligible to apply for permission to reapply for admission. SEP112015_01H4212.pdf Matter of G-H-, ID# 13595 (AAO Sept. 11, 2015) APPEAL OF SAN JOSE FIELD OFFICE DECISION (I-601) SUSTAINED The record reflects that the Applicant turned 17 years old on [DATE one day before she tried to enter the United States. The Applicant was therefore a minor at the time of her false U.S. citizenship claim. The law recognizes that many children lack the judgment to appreciate the consequences of ill-advised choices. Whether the Applicant had the capacity to make a false citizenship claim, such
  3. 3. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 3 of 27 that she should be found to be inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, depends on whether she had the maturity and judgment to understand the nature and consequences of her action. In the present matter, the cumulative evidence in the record reflects that the Applicant, given her particular circumstances, lacked the capacity to make a false citizenship claim under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (I-601) (Unlawful Presence) HYPERLINK CITE AS: RESULT/COMMENTS SEP032015_01H6212.pdf Matter of R-A-B-, ID# 12917 (AAO Sept. 3, 2015) MOTION OF AAO DECISION DENIED The Director denied the Form I-601 as a matter of discretion, as no purpose would be served where the Applicant would remain inadmissible under
  4. 4. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 4 of 27 section 212(a)(9)(C) of the Act. Decision of the Director, dated March 26, 2014. ****** The record indicates that the Applicant may also be inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), for having attempted to procure a visa to the United States through fraud or material misrepresentation. The Applicant initially did not disclose his prior entries to the United States without inspection and his unlawful presence in the United States when seeking his immigrant visa at the U.S. Embassy in Costa Rica. SEP042015_01H6212.pdf Matter of C-G-L-, ID# 12136 (AAO Sept. 4, 2015) MOTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION DENIED Applicant did not demonstrate that his qualifying relative would experience
  5. 5. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 5 of 27 extreme hardship should she remain in the United States without him. Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (Criminal and Related) HYPERLINK CITE AS: RESULT/COMMENTS SEP022015_01H2212.pdf Matter of A-D-M-M-, ID# 12275 (AAO Sept. 2, 2015) APPEAL OF NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE DECISION SUSTAINED The Director concluded that the Applicant did not have a qualifying relative and denied the application accordingly. Decision of District Director, dated July 29, 2014. ……. The record does establish that the Applicant has a qualifying relative, her U.S. citizen son. ………… The record does not indicate that the Applicant's admission to the United States is contrary to the national welfare, safety or security of the United
  6. 6. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 6 of 27 States and the record does indicate that the Applicant has been rehabilitated. Thus, the Applicant has established that she qualifies for a waiver under section 212(h)(1)(A) of the Act. ………… In discretionary matters, the Applicant bears the full burden of proving his or her eligibility for discretionary relief. See Matter of Ducret, 15 I&N Dec. 620 (BIA 1976). Here, the Applicant has met that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained. SEP022015_02H2212.pdf APPEAL OF OAKLAND PARK FIELD OFFICE DECISION DISMISSED AS UNNECESSARY The Director found that the Applicant had failed to establish that his qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship as a result of his inadmissibility. The waiver application was denied accordingly. Decision of the
  7. 7. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 7 of 27 Field Office Director, dated April 15, 2015. …….. The Applicant was convicted of simple battery under Florida Statute 784.03, which does not involve aggravating factors such as the use of deadly weapon or the infliction of serious bodily injury. We therefore find that the offense categorically does not involve moral turpitude. 3 Accordingly, we find that the Applicant has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude that would render him inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Therefore, the Director's decision will be withdrawn. ……. 3 The record of conviction does not indicate whether the applicant was convicted of intentionally touching or striking another person against the will of the other or intentionally causing
  8. 8. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 8 of 27 bodily harm to another person. However, we find that as the minimal conduct for which there is a realistic probability of prosecution under both offenses contained in Florida Statute 784.03(1)(a) does not involve moral turpitude, the offense is categorically not a crime involving moral turpitude. SEP032015_01H2212.pdf Federal First Offenders Act (FFOA) Matter of E-G-C-D-, ID# 12256 (AAO Sept. 3, 20 15) FFOA relieves certain first-time offenders convicted on drug possession charges of what would otherwise be the immigration consequences of the conviction. However, FFOA relief is unavailable when an offender has violated a condition of probation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3607(a). See Estrada v. Holder, 560 F. 3d 1039, 1042 (9111 Cir. 2009). APPEAL OF LOS ANGELES FIELD OFFICE DECISION DENIED Because the applicant was not convicted of a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana, his inadmissibility under section 212 (a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Act cannot be waived under section 212(h) of the Act. There is no waiver for the applicant's inadmissibility.
  9. 9. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 9 of 27 SEP032015_02H2212.pdf Matter of E-M-R-, ID# 10579 (AAO Sept. 3, 2015) MOTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION DENIED The Applicant's motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), as it does not establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. SEP042015_01H2212.pdf Matter of G-R-E-S-, ID# 11313 (AAO Sept. 4, 2015) APPEAL OF WASHINGTON FIELD OFFICE DECISION DISMISSED AS UNNECESSARY In order to find the element of willfulness, it must be determined that the alien was fully aware of the nature of the information sought and knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately misrepresented material facts. See generally Matter of G-G-, 7 I&N Dec. 161 (BIA 1956). To be willful,
  10. 10. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 10 of 27 a misrepresentation must be made with knowledge of its falsity. 7 I&N Dec. at 164. ………….……. We do not find the Applicant made a willful material misrepresentation to gain an immigration benefit. SEP082015_01H2212.pdf Matter of R-V-, ID# 12363 (AAO Sept. 8, 2015) APPEAL OF MIAMI FIELD OFFICE DECISION DISMISSED The Applicant was found to be 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 a crime involving moral turpitude. ………. On appeal the Applicant asserts that his conviction is not for a crime involving moral turpitude. The Applicant cites BIA decisions holding that involuntary manslaughter does not involve moral
  11. 11. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 11 of 27 turpitude and claims that the statute under which he was convicted does not require that it be proved he intended to kill the victim, so the statute punishes involuntary manslaughter. The Florida manslaughter statute prohibits both intentional (voluntary) and unintentional (involuntary) killings. Rodriguez v. State, 443 So.2d 286, 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The BIA held that an involuntary manslaughter statute was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) because the statute had as elements both extreme recklessness and the death of another person, a result serious enough to raise the offense to a CIMT even without a showing of specific evil intent. Matter of Franklin, 20 I&N Dec. 867 (BIA 1994).
  12. 12. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 12 of 27 SEP112015_01H2212.pdf Matter of M-I-, ID# 10606 (AAO Sept. 11, 2015) APPEAL OF WASHINGTON, D.C. FIELD OFFICE DECISION SUSTAINED Since the activities that are the basis for the Applicant's criminal convictions occurred more than 15 years ago, he is eligible for a waiver under section 212(h)(1)(A) of the Act. Section 212(h)(1)(A) of the Act requires that the Applicant's admission to the United States not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the United States and that he has been rehabilitated. ……….. The crimes and immigration violations committed by the Applicant were serious in nature. Nonetheless, we find that the Applicant has established that the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable factors. Therefore, a
  13. 13. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 13 of 27 favorable exercise of the Secretary's discretion is warranted. Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (Fraud or Misrepresentation) HYPERLINK CITE AS: RESULT/COMMENTS SEP012015_01H5212.pdf Matter of A-N-E-S, ID# 10765 (AAO Sept. 1, 2015) On appeal the Applicant, through counsel, states that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from an individual who, unbeknownst to him, was not eligible to practice law in the State of California. ………………..….. …. The Applicant explains, with respect to the third Lozada requirement, that no complaint was filed with the California Bar Association, as the individual had already been disbarred. See Correa-Rivera v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 2013) (to comply with Matter of APPEAL OF LOS ANGELES FIELD OFFICE DECISION DISMISSED The Applicant has new representation and filed a timely appeal. His Form I- 601 will accordingly be given de novo consideration. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004).......... The Field Office Director found the applicant to be inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) ofthe Act, as the Applicant procured admission to the United States on March 16, 1997, using a passport from the Philippines and U.S. visa in the name of another
  14. 14. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 14 of 27 Lozada the motion "should reflect" whether a bar complaint has been filed, but "probative evidence" that a complaint has been filed is not required). The U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review also issued a final order of discipline for the Applicant's former counsel, dated September 13, 2006, indefinitely suspending him from practice before the Board, immigration courts, and the Department of Homeland Security. (to comply with Matter of Lozada the motion "should reflect" whether a bar complaint has been filed, but "probative evidence" that a complaint has been filed is not required).The U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review also issued a final order of discipline for the Applicant's former counsel, dated September 13, 2006, indefinitely suspending him from practice before the Board, immigration courts, and the Department of Homeland Security. individual. On appeal, the Applicant does not contest his inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act for having procured admission to the United States through fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. ……………………………… In this case, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to show that the hardships faced by the qualifying relative, considered in the aggregate, rise beyond the common results of removal or inadmissibility to the level of extreme hardship as required under section 212(i) of the Act. As the applicant has not established extreme hardship to a qualifying family member, no purpose would be served in determining whether he merits a waiver as a matter of discretion.
  15. 15. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 15 of 27 In application proceedings, it is the applicant's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. SEP032015_01H5212.pdf Matter of M-A-A-, ID# 10601 (AAO Sept. 3, 2015) APPEAL OF LOS ANGELES FIELD OFFICE DECISION DISMISSED In this case, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to show that the hardships faced by the Applicant's U.S. citizen spouse, considered in the aggregate, or his U.S. lawful permanent resident mother, also considered in the aggregate, rise beyond the common results of removal or inadmissibility to the level of extreme hardship. The Applicant has not established extreme hardship to a qualifying relative, as required under section 212(i) of the Act. As the Applicant has not established
  16. 16. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 16 of 27 extreme hardship to a qualifying family member, no purpose would be served in determining whether he merits a waiver as a matter of discretion. SEP032015_02H5212.pdf Matter of W-C-S, ID# 12218 (AAO Sept. 3, 2015) APPEAL OF PHILADELPHIA FIELD OFFICE DECISION DISMISSED The record is silent regarding the hardships that the Applicant's spouse or parent would have to face if they were to relocate to Ghana with the Applicant. The Applicant also provides no evidence addressing the extent of any family ties to Ghana. As such, in this case, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to show that the hardships the spouse or parent would experience upon relocation, considered in the aggregate, rise beyond the common results of removal or inadmissibility to the level of extreme hardship.
  17. 17. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 17 of 27 SEP042015_01H5212.pdf Matter of A-B-, ID# 12351 (AAO Sept. 4, 2015) APPEAL OF NEW YORK DISCTRICT OFFICE DECISION DISMISSED A Form I-601 waiver application is viable when there is a pending adjustment of status application or immigrant visa application. In this case, the Applicant's Form I-485 was denied on October 21, 2014. As described above, the Director found the Applicant did not establish his eligibility to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident under section 245(a) of the Act or section 245(i) of the Act. The Applicant has filed a motion to reopen the denial of his Form I-485, but the record lacks evidence showing that the Director has changed her finding. Because the Applicant was found ineligible to adjust status for reasons other than his inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, no
  18. 18. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 18 of 27 purpose would be served in examining the hardship to the Applicant's spouse. Accordingly, the waiver application is dismissed as a matter of discretion. SEP042015_02H5212.pdf Matter of C-G-L-, ID# 12136 (AAO Sept. 4, 2015) MOTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION DENIED The Applicant, a native and citizen of South Korea, seeks a waiver of inadmissibility. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) and § 212(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i). The Field Office Director, Hagatna, Guam, denied the application. A subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The matter is now before us on a motion. The motion is denied. The Applicant was found to be inadmissible to the United States
  19. 19. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 19 of 27 pursuant to section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9) (B)(i)(II), for having been unlawfully present in the United States for more than one year and again seeking admission within ten years of his last departure from the United States. He was also found to be inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), for procuring admission to the United States through fraud or misrepresentation. The Applicant is married to a U.S. citizen. He seeks a waiver of inadmissibility in order to reside in the United States with his family. SEP082015_01H5212.pdf Matter of N-F-, ID# 10739 (AAO Sept. 8, 2015) APPEAL OF MIAMI FIELD OFFICE DECISION DISMISSED In order to be found inadmissible for fraud or willful misrepresentation, an
  20. 20. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 20 of 27 individual must seek to procure, have sought to procure or have procured a visa, other documentation, admission, or other benefit under the Act. A misrepresentation is generally material only if by it the alien received a benefit for which he would not otherwise have been eligible. See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988); see also Matter of Tijam, 22 I&N Dec. 408 (BIA 1998); Matter of Martinez-Lopez, 10 I&N Dec. 409 (BIA 1962; AG 1964 ). A misrepresentation or concealment must be shown by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence to be predictably capable of affecting, that is, having a natural tendency to affect, the official decision in order to be considered material. Kungys, 485 U.S. at 771- 72. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) has held that a misrepresentation made in connection
  21. 21. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 21 of 27 with an application for visa or other documents, or for entry into the United States, is material if either: 1. the alien is excludable on the true facts, or 2. the misrepresentation tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility and which might well have resulted in proper determination that he be excluded. Matter of S- and B-C-, 9 I&N Dec. 436,448-449 (BIA 1960; AG 1961). SEP082015_02H5212.pdf Matter of D-T-C, ID# 12807 (AAO Sept. 8, 2015) MOTION OF AAO DECISION DENIED The Applicant, a native and citizen of Ghana, seeks a waiver of inadmissibility. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 212(i), 8
  22. 22. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 22 of 27 U.S.C. § 1182(i). The Acting District Director, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, denied the application. The Applicant appealed that decision and we dismissed that appeal. The Applicant filed a motion to reopen and reconsider that decision, the motion to reopen was granted, but the underlying decision dismissing the appeal was affirmed. The matter is now before us on a second motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion will be denied. The Applicant was found to be inadmissible to the United States pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), because he procured admission to the United States using a passport and visa issued in the name of another individual. The Applicant seeks a waiver under section 212(i) of the Act in
  23. 23. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 23 of 27 order to reside in the United States with his U.S. citizen spouse and children. SEP092015_01H5212.pdf Matter of G-T-N-, ID #12367 (AAO Sept. 9, 2015) APPEAL OF NEW ARK FIELD OFFICE DECISION DISMISSED The spouse asserts that Ghana is dangerous and that on visits there he has heard stories of people getting killed. The psychological evaluation states that the spouse reports a concern for political instability in Ghana where there is a history of volatility and that it is a dangerous environment not properly policed. The U.S. Department of State recommends that due to the potential for violence, U.S. citizens should avoid political rallies, and it states that pick-pocketing, purse- snatching, and various types of scams are the most common forms of crime confronting visitors, but that incidences of violent crime are on the rise. US
  24. 24. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 24 of 27 Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs - Ghana, dated July 18, 2014. The submitted country conditions information does not establish that the applicant's spouse would be at risk as a result of crime or violence. There are no current travel advisories for Ghana, and the record does not address specifically where the Applicant would reside SEP112015_01H5212.pdf Matter of G-H-, ID# 13595 (AAO Sept. 11, 2015) APPEAL OF SAN JOSE FIELD OFFICE DECISION SUSTAINED The record contains an approved Form I-360 VA WA petition for the Applicant, based on abuse by her former spouse. Further, the Applicant asserted credibly in an August 6, 2010, affidavit that she married at the age of 14; that her husband subjected her to physical and emotional abuse throughout her marriage and she "lived in fear" of her
  25. 25. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 25 of 27 husband; and that she was afraid to disobey the plans her husband made for her to reenter the country illegally to join him in the United States, particularly because he had their son and she was worried about his safety. The record contains police report, restraining order, and criminal record evidence reflecting an ongoing pattern of violence by the Applicant's husband against the Applicant. The record also corroborates the Applicant's assertions that she had her first child at the age of 15 and that her husband arranged for their son to enter the United States separately. Further, the Applicant asserted that after she was removed to Mexico, her husband threatened to keep their son and raise him without her if she did not agree to reenter the United States illegally.
  26. 26. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 26 of 27 SEP152015_01H5212.pdf Matter of P-P-, ID# 10598 (AAO Sept. 15, 2015) APPEAL OF LOS ANGELES FIELD OFFICE DECISION DISMISSED In a decision dated August 8, 2013, the Field Office Director found that the Applicant did not have a pending Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and thus, the Applicant's Form I-601 served no purpose and was denied accordingly. On appeal, the Applicant states that in 2002 she w In a decision dated August 8, 2013, the Field Office Director found that the Applicant did not have a pending Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and thus, the Applicant's Form I-601 served no purpose and was denied accordingly. On appeal, the Applicant states that in 2002 she was found inadmissible for marriage fraud and was granted voluntary departure by
  27. 27. CONTACT: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 27 of 27 an immigration judge, but she did not leave the United States. The Applicant states that her removal order was reopened and terminated by an immigration judge so that she could adjust her status in the United States based on section 241(f) of the Act and Virk v. INS, 295 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2002), which she states allows her to apply for an extreme hardship waiver. The Applicant states that she filed a new Form I-485 and Form I-601 based on a new marriage to a U.S. citizen. The Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, that the Applicant's current U.S. citizen spouse filed on her behalf and her most recent Form I-485 were denied under section 204(c) of the Act. She appealed the denial of her Form I-130 and filed a motion to reconsider for her Form I- 485.

×