identifying data deleted t~prevent clearly unwarranted                                                           US Lkparr...
Page 2DISCUSSION: The waiver application was denied by the Field Office Director, Columbus, Ohioand is now before the Admi...
Page 3                admitted for permanent residence, if it is established to the satisfaction of the                Att...
section 212(i). The only relevant hardship in the present case is the hardship suffered by theapplicants spouse or father ...
Page 5is able to provide on her own, and that it has become necessary for him to move back to California inorder to provid...
Page 6The applicant states that the feelings of being separated from loved ones are harsh and painful.Statement from the a...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

I 601 denied May 27 2011 INA 212 i


Published on

Prepare for Public Engagement

Published in: Lifestyle, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

I 601 denied May 27 2011 INA 212 i

  1. 1. identifying data deleted t~prevent clearly unwarranted US Lkparrmmtof tlomdnd Stcurl* ..invasion of personal privacj U.S. Cilioauhip nd lmmiption Savica OJke ofMmi&lmliW A p p r * MS 2090 Wuhinmn. DC 2052929-2090 U S Citizenship .. PUBLIC COPY and Immigration Services FILE: I RE: N APPLICATION: - - Ofice: COLUMBUS,OH Date: DEC 0 I Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility under S d o n 2 2 i of the knmigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1182(i) 1() 2009 ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: INSTRUCTIONS: This is the dccnion of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have b a n returned to the office tha~originally decided your case. Any further inquii must be made to that ofice. If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have , wnsidered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R 5 103.5 for the specific mquirements. All motions m s be submitted to the office thal originally decided your case by ut filing a Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i). ~ h i d fAdministrative Appeals Office ,
  2. 2. Page 2DISCUSSION: The waiver application was denied by the Field Office Director, Columbus, Ohioand is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will bedismissed.The applicant is a native of Vietnam and a citizen of Canada who was found to be inadmissible tothe United States under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act),8 U.S.C. 4 1 182(a)(6)(C)(i), for having attempted to procure admission into the United States byfraud or willful misrepresentation. The applicant is mamed to a naturalized United States citizenand states she is the daughter of a United States citizen. She seeks a waiver of inadmissibilitypursuant to section 212(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1182(i), in order to reside in the United States withher spouse and father.The Field Office Director concluded that the applicitnt had failed to establish that extreme hardshipwould be imposed upon a qualifying relative and denied the Application for Waiver of Grounds ofExcludability (Form 1-601) accordingly. Decision of the Field OBce Director, dated May 8,2008.On appeal, the applicant contends that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)erred as a matter of law in finding that the applicant had failed to establish extreme hardship to herqualifying relative, as necessary for a waiver under 212(i) of the Act. He fuaher contends thatUSCIS failed to consider its previous approval of a multiple entry nonimmigrant visa for theapplicant. Form 1-2908. Notice of Appeol or Motion.In support of the waiver, counsel submits a statement. The record also includes, but is not limited to,a vendors license for the applicants spouse; tax return for the applicants spouse; statements fromthe applicants spouse; a psychological evaluation; a business license; statements from the applicant;Canadian police clearance letters for the applicant; a medical letter and medical records for theapplicant; medical bills and receipts for the applicant; bank statements; a notice of propertyownership; a property deed; homeowners insurance; a car insurance bill and card; a life insurancepolicy ;a statement from the applicants mother, and a fraudulent employment letter and pay stubsrelating to the applicant. The entire record was reviewed and considered in rendering this decision.Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that: (i) Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sou@ to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible.Section 212(i) of the Act provides that: (1) The Attorney General [now the Secre.tary of Homeland Security (Secretary)] may, in the discretion of the Attorney General [Secretary], waive the application of clause (i) of subsection (a)(6)(C) in the case of an alien who is the spouse, son or daughter of a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully
  3. 3. Page 3 admitted for permanent residence, if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General [Secretary] that the refusal of admission to the United States of such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such an alien.The record reflects that on February 16, 2000 the applicant attempted to gain admission to theUnited States at Buffalo, New York as a non-immigrant visitor. Form 1-213. Record o fDeportabldInadmissible Alien, dated February 16, 2000. At the port of entry, the applicantpresented a Canadian citizenship card and stated that she lived and worked in Canada. Form 1-213.Record o/Deportable/lnadmissible Alien, dated February 16, 2000. In secondary inspection, theapplicant stated she was going to visit her aunt in Ohio for a few days and then returning to Canada.Id. She also presented a letter of employment and pay stubs i h m a company in Canada. Id.Statement ojemployment; pay stubs. Upon additional questioning, the applicant admitted that shehad been living and working without authorization in the United States since December 25, 1999 andit was her intent to return to her unlawful residence and employment in the United States. Id.Counsel asserts that the applicants statement regarding her employment in Canada is not material,as she was admissible regardless of where she was working or living. Attorneys briqf While theAAO notes counsels assertion, it obsenes that the applicants misrepresentation regarding heremployment is directly relevant to the applicants intention of gaining admission to the United Statesas a nonimmigmnt visitor. By misrepresenting her place of employment and residence at the port ofentry, the applicant sought to establish that it was her intention to visit, mther than to reside in, theUnited States. Even if the applicant had not misrepresented her place of employment and residence,she would still be inadmissible to the United States under section 212(2)(6)(C)(i) of the Act as shesought to enter the United States as a nonimmigrant when her true intent was to remain and work inthe United States, which she would not have been authorized to do as a nonimmigrant. See Marter o fS- and B-C-, 9 I&N Dec. 436,448-449 (AG 1961).The AAO notes counsels additional claim on appeal regarding the applicant not having accruedunlawful presence in the United States. The AAO finds that the issue of unlawful presence isirrelevant to this case, as the applicant has been found to be inadmissible under =tion212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. Counsel also asserts that USClS has already admitted the applicant as anonimmigant and failed to give her nonimmigrant admissions appropriate consideration inaccordance with Zhang v. Mukasey. 509 F.3d 313 (6 Cir. 2007). The AAO notes that while theapplicants 212(a)(6)(C)(i) inadmissibility may have been waived under section 212(d)(3) of the Act,allowing her to enter the United States as a nonimmigrant, that waiver does not establish hereligibility for a waiver as an immigrant under section 212(i) of the Act, where she m s demonstrate utthat a qualifyingrelative would suffer extreme hardship as a result of her inadmissibility.A section 212(i) waiver of the bar to admission resulting From violation of section 212(a)(6)(C) ofthe Act is dependent first upon a showing that the bar imposes an extreme hardship to the citizen orl a f i l l y resident spouse or parent of the applicant. The plain language of the statute indicates thathardship that the applicant would experience if the applicants waiver q u e s t is denied is notdirectly relevant to the determination as to whether the applicant is eligible for a waiver under
  4. 4. section 212(i). The only relevant hardship in the present case is the hardship suffered by theapplicants spouse or father if the applicant is removed. If extreme hardship is established, it is butone favorable factor to be considered in the determination of whether the Secretary should exercisediscretion. See Matter ofMendez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996). Matter o Cewanles-Gontalez.22 I&N Dec. 560,565-566 (BIA 1999) provides a list of factors the f Board of Immigration Appeals deems relevant in determining whether an alien has established extreme hardship pursuant to section 212(i) of the Act. These factors include the presence of a lawful permanent resident or United States citizen family ties to this country; the qualifying relatives family ties outside the United States; the conditions in the counhy or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relatives ties in such countries; the financial impact of departure fiom this country; and significant conditions of health,.particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical care in the counhy to which the qualifying relative would relocate.The AAO notes that extreme hardship to the applicants spouse or father must be establishedwhether he resides in Canada or the United States, as he is not required to reside outside of theUnited States based on the denial of the applicants waiver request. The AAO will consider therelevant factors in adjudication of this case.The AAO notes that .the record fails to include documentation that establishes the applicants fatheras a United States citizen. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that theapplicants father would suffer extreme hardship if he resides in Canada or remains in the UnitedStates. As such, the AAO does not tind that the applicant has demonstrated that her father is aqualifying relative or that he would suffer extreme hardship as a result of her inadmissibility.If the applicants spouse joins the applicant in Canada, the applicant needs to establish that herspouse will suffer extreme hardship. The applicants spouse was born in Vietnam. Natumlizationcertificate. The record does not indicate that the applicants spouse has any family or cultutal ties toCanada. Form G-325A. Biographic Information sheet. for the applicants spouse. The applicantsspouse states that he grew up in the United States and that all of his family resides in the UnitedStates. Starementjrom the applicanr s spouse, dated September 30,2007. He tiuther states that hehas responsibilities to his family and that both of his parents are diabetic, that his father has first-stage lung cancer and m t l y had surgery, and that his father is mentally-ill. Id. He M e r assertsthat his father-in-law just had heart surgery and he needs to be in the United States for him as well.Id. The applicants spouse also reports that he and the applicant have purchased a home and that heowns a business that employs three people. Id. He esserts that moving to Canada with his wifewould force him to sell his home and his business, and that he cannot lay off his workers whodepend on him. IdIn a psychological evaluation, the licensed psychologist notes that the applicants spouse is the legalpsychologist that his fathers condition continues to worsen ~d he needs more care than his mother
  5. 5. Page 5is able to provide on her own, and that it has become necessary for him to move back to California inorder to provide better care for his parents. Id. In addition to actively hallucinating and requiring several psychiatric hospitalizations, his father has also had a lung removed and been diagnosed withdiabetes. Id. While the AAO acknowledges these statements, it notes that the licensed psychologistdoes not indicate that he reviewed any medical records for the applicants spouses father to confirmhis medical problems and that the record also fails to include documentation that establishes themedical condition of the applicants spouses father. The AAO further observes that, while thepsychological evaluation reports that the applicants spouse indicated that he must move toCalifomia to care for his parents, the reoord offers no pmof of such a move. Going on recordwithout supporting documentary evidence will not meet the burden of proof of this proceeding. SeeMatter of Sofici, 22 II&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998)(citing Matter of Treasure CraJ ofCalijbrnia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The AAO also notes that the psychologicalevaluation does not specifically address the emotional impact on the applicants spouse if he were torelocate to Canada rather than move to California to be with his parents. While the AAO alsoacknowledges the applicants spouses statements regarding the loss of his business and home uponrelocation, it again finds the record to offer no proof that he would be unable to conduct his businessfrom Canada or that he would be required to sell his and the applicants home if he relocated. Whenlooking at the aforementioned factors, the AAO does not find that the applicant has demonstratedextreme hardship to her spouse if he were to reside in Canada.If the applicants spouse resides in the United States, the applicant needs to establish that her spousewill suffer extreme hardship. As previously noted, the applicants spouse was born in Vietnam.Naturalization certificate. The applicants spouses family lives in the United States. Fonn G-325A. Biographic Infomation sheet, for the applicant s spouse: S l a t e n t from the appliconlsspouse, dated September 30, 2007. The applicants spouse notes that he is stressed from having toperform everyday chores without the assistance of the applicant in addition to taking care of hisbusiness. Starementfiom the applicantsspouse, dated September 30,2007. According to a psychological evaluation fiom a licensed psychologist, the applicants spouse is suffering from Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Mild and has clinical symptoms of depression and anxiety. P~chologicalevaluation fiom P t e dNovember 1,2007 and November 12,2007. In his psychologists opinion, bcing separated from theapplicant will surely cause the applicants spouses symptoms to become heightened to the degreethat he will sink even further into his depression. Id. Although the input of any mental healthpmfaional is respected and valuable, the AAO finds the submitted evaluation to be of limitedevidentiary value to this proceeding as it is based on a single interview with the applicants spouse.While the AAO notes that the psychologist who evaluated the applicants spouse based his findings,in part, on a series of standardized tests for depression, it finds that the evaluation does not report theapplicants spouses test results, offering only generalized statements, e.g., "significant depressivesymptomatology," regarding test outcomes. Therefore, the administered tests do not addsignificantly to the weight of the evaluation. Accordingly, the AAO finds the conclusions reached inthe submitted evaluation, being based on a single interview, to lack the insight and daborationcommensurate with an established relationship with a psychologist, thereby rendering themspeculative and of diminished value to a determination of extreme hardship.
  6. 6. Page 6The applicant states that the feelings of being separated from loved ones are harsh and painful.Statement from the applicant, undated. The applicants spouse states that he and the applicaal needeach other physically and emotionally. Statementfiom the applicant f spouse, dated September 30.2007. The AAO acknowledges the difficulties faced by the applicants spouse. However, U.S. courtdecisions have repeatedly held that the common results of deportation or exclusion are insufficient toprove extreme hardship. See Harson INS, 927 F.2d 465,468 (9th Cir. 1991). For example, Matter 1. 1of Pilch, 21 l&N Dec. 627 (BIA 1996), held that emotional hardship caused by severing family andcommunity ties is a common result of deportation and does not constitute extreme hardship. Inaddition, Perez v. INS, 96 F.3d 390 (9th Cir. 1996), held that the common results of deportation areinsufficient to prove extreme hardship and defined extreme hardship as hardship that w s unusual or abeyond that which would normally be expected upon deportation. Hassan v. INS, supra, held ktherthat the uprooting of family and separation from friends does not necessarily amount to extremehardship but rather represents the type of inconvenience and hardship experienced by the families ofmost aliens being deported. Separation From a loved one is a nonnal result of the removal process.The AAO recognizes that the applicants spouse will endure hardship as a result of his separationfrom the applicant. However, the record does not distinguish his situation, if he remains in theUnited States, h m that of other individuals separated as a result of removal. Accordingly, it doesnot establish that the hardship experienced by the applicants spouse would rise to the level ofextreme hardship. When looking at the aforementioned factors, the AAO does not find that theapplicant has demonstrated extreme hardship to her spouse if he were to reside in the United States.Having found the applicant statutorily ineligible for relief, no purpose would be served in discussingwhether he merits a waiver as a matter ofdiscretion.In proceedings for application for waiver of grounds of inadmissibilityunder section 212(a)(6)(C) ofthe Act, the burden of proving eligibility remains entirely with the applicant. See Section 291 of theAct, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the applicant has not met that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will bedismissed.ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.