This document is a letter to USCIS requesting additional evidence for an application for a provisional unlawful presence waiver. It summarizes a previous case, Matter of Mendez, where extreme hardship factors were found not to outweigh negative factors. It then provides additional evidence of extreme hardship to the applicant's US citizen wife due to financial difficulties, potential worsening of medical conditions, and family separation if the applicant is removed to Mexico, where he would earn a very low income.

1. 8781 Warren H. Abernathy Highway • Spartanburg, SC • 29301
Ph. (864) 595-6000 • FAX: (864) 595-6056
May 21, 2015
Mail – Delivery Confirmation
USCIS
P.O. Box 21600
Phoenix, AZ 85036
RE: Request for Additional Evidence for Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence
Waiver (Form I-601A)
I-601A Receipt: MSC-15-906-08390
DOS Consular: CDJ2014798027
IV Applicant: Alejandro RAMIREZESTRADA
USC Spouse: Amber Nikole RAMIREZ
Enclosed, please find the requested additional evidence in regard to the referenced Form I-601A
for the Immigrant Visa applicant, Mr. Alejandro RAMIREZ ESTRADA, and his U.S. citizen
spouse, Mrs. Amber Nikole RAMIREZ. I have enclosed further supporting evidence of extreme
hardship to his U.S. citizen wife, who is the qualifying relative for purposes of this application
for a waiver of the grounds of inadmissibility under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“the
Act”).
FURTHER STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In Matter of Mendez (21 I&N Dec. 296 BIA 1996), the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the
respondent a waiver of inadmissibility, choosing not to exercise discretion under section
212(h)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(h)(1)(B) (1994), citing that
his crime of moral turpitude was too great to overcome the hardship factors suffered by his
United States citizen wife and outweighed any other favorable factors present in his case;
however, Chairman Paul W. Schmidt, Member John W. Guendelsberger, and Member Lory D.
Rosenberg presented dissenting opinions that I feel gives merit to Mr. Ramirez’s prayer for relief
in the form of his provisional unlawful presence waiver of inadmissibility as allowed under INA
section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v). I would also like to present

2. additional evidence that more completely explains the hardship Mrs. Ramirez would suffer due
to the loss of her husband in regard to the family’s financial situation, the potential for
exacerbation of medical conditions, and the disruption of family unity.
In Mendez, the respondent appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals, asking for a waiver
under 212(h)(1)(B) of the Act. He was inadmissible due to his crime of moral turpitude:
criminal sexual misconduct with a minor. The Board found his crime to be too atrocious, and
found him not to be repentant enough (because he continued to maintain his innocence after his
guilty verdict), and decided that these factors were too great to overcome, despite the extreme
hardships that would be faced by his United States citizen wife. While the particulars of Mr.
Ramirez’s case differ greatly from those of Mendez, and though Mr. Ramriez’s character differs
greatly from the perceived moral character presented in Mendez, the two men’s families share
similar hardship factors, especially in regard to financial situation, medical conditions, and
family unity.
While Mendez was denied a favorable exercise of discretion by the Board due to his crime of
moral turpitude, Chairman Schmidt points out that, among other things, the extreme hardship
factors were not given proper weight and these factors, in his opinion, tipped the balance of
factors back into favorable territory, causing his dissent. Despite the heinous crime of which
Mendez was convicted, all three Members in dissent would have granted the waiver of
inadmissibility. As Mr. Ramirez has no negative characteristics to counterbalance (other than his
illegal entry and stay in the United States), is spoken so highly of by his United States citizen
family and friends as being a person of exceptional moral character, has such extensive, close
family ties in the United States, and the fact that his wife would suffer extreme, unbearable
hardship in his absence, I see no reason why he should be denied a favorable exercise of
discretion in the form of an approved I-601a waiver.
As shown by the evidence previously presented, Mr. Ramirez is a man of extremely good moral
character who is well-respected by his extended United States citizen family, friends, and
community. He is a loving father and devoted husband, and has done much to support not only
his own family, but his wife’s as well. At the time of his original application, his wife’s aunt was
living with the family so that they could provide her with support due to her illness and
unemployment. When Mrs. Ramirez’s sister, Samantha Babb, was in danger of losing her home,
the Ramirez family moved in with her and her family in order to support them financially so that
the Babb’s would not lose their home. (See Exhibit A.)
Even with temporarily combining their households, the Ramirez’s still live on a very tight
budget. (See Exhibit B.) They are paying half Mrs. Babb’s household bills as well as their own
family bills. To complicate matters further, the Ramirez’s have recently discovered that their
daughter, Reagan, is going to require orthodontic work, with an estimated cost of $5000 to
$8000, and that their insurance will not cover the expense. (Affidavit of Mrs. Amber
Ramirez.) Mrs. Ramriez is a cosmetologist working in a salon where she is not only required to
pay weekly booth rental, she is also responsible for providing her own supplies. (See Exhibit

3. C.) She has entered into a two-year contract agreement with the salon (which ends in September
2016), and she would find herself in breach if she were to have to leave her work to care for her
children in her husband’s absence, or abandon it in the case she were to go with Mr. Ramirez to
Mexico. (See Exhibit C.) These expenditures eat heavily into her earned income, leaving her
with only a fraction of what she earns. (See Exhibit B.) Despite these factors, the Ramirez’s
have no significant debt and are able to pay their bills completely and in a timely fashion. The
Ramirez’s dedication to financial responsibility makes them stand out in stark contrast to typical
young American families, who are typically burdened with mountains of debt. This is only
possible through the combination of their incomes, the halving of which would go beyond the
“expected” financial struggle suffered in the event of Mr. Ramirez’s deportation, and would
place Mrs. Ramirez in dire straits. As in Mendez, the Ramirez family (and extended family) is
financially dependent upon his income. Though Mrs. Ramirez is employed, her income alone
cannot support herself and three small children. (See Exhibit B.)
If Mr. Ramirez is removed, Mrs. Ramirez’s income will be slashed to the point she will be
unable to care for herself and her children. (See Exhibit B.) Her family, willing though they
may be, is unable to provide her with financial support. The Ramirez’s are currently able to
align their work schedules so that childcare during their working hours is not necessary; in the
absence of Mr. Ramirez, Mrs. Ramirez would have to cut back on her working hours because she
would be unable to afford childcare for her three children, making what would be an
unmanageable financial situation even worse.
In In Re Matter of U-, 5 I&N Dec. 413 (BIA 1953), the Court pronounced that the BIA must
consider the respondent’s ability to provide for his family in the United States when he is abroad.
The financial outlook in Mexico for Mr. Ramriez is quite bleak; he is likely to struggle to support
himself, let alone send any support home to his wife. As previously presented, Mr. Ramirez has
been working for the El Jalisco restaurant as a waiter since May 2001. In a report by
worldsalaries.org, the gross monthly average income of a waiter in Mexico is 3,274 pesos. (See
Exhibit E.) At the current exchange rate of 0.066 U.S. dollars to pesos, Mr. Ramirez can expect
to bring home approximately $215.00 USD per month.
Mrs. Ramirez is dependent upon Mr. Ramirez’s income to support herself and their children and
there is no one else available in the U.S. to support the family financially in his absence. If the
family goes with Mr. Ramirez to Mexico, they would have to abandon their financial
responsibilities here in the United States, such as Mrs. Ramirez’s booth rental contract, cell
phone contracts, and credit card payments in order to eke out a living. (See Exhibit B.) As
cosmetology is a profession highly dependent upon the ability to communicate, and as Mrs.
Ramirez cannot speak, write, or understand Spanish, she will be unable to find work in her
profession in Mexico, and it is highly unlikely that she will be able to find any employment at all
due to her inability to speak, write, or understand Spanish.
As in Mendez, the respondent’s wife also suffers from medical conditions that will undoubtedly
worsen if her husband is deported, a factor considered as favorable by the BIA. As previously

4. presented, Mrs. Ramirez and her children all suffer from asthma, allergies, and chronic infection.
Poor air quality and lack of adequate hospital care will make it impossible for them to live
healthy lives in Mexico. If Mr. Ramirez is removed, it is reasonably expected that the family left
behind will suffer from stress; however, this is where Mrs. Ramirez and her children differ
greatly from healthy individuals. While stress in these situations is normal, her physiological
response to it is not.
In a study by Edith Chen and Gregory E. Miller of the University of British Columbia, it was
shown that asthmatic individuals have a different chemical response to stress than healthy ones.
(See Exhibit D.) Asthma sufferers experience heightened production of Th-2 cytokines IL-4 and
IL-13, which bind to B cells and cause them to synthesize and release IgE antibodies. These IgE
antibodies bind to mast cells in the airways, triggering the release of allergic mediators like
histamines and leukotrienes, which cause edema, smooth muscle constriction, and the production
of mucus. (See Exhibit D.) This combination of reactions causes the clinical symptoms of
asthma: wheezing, chest tightness, and shortness of breath. (See Exhibit D.) The overproduction
of Th-2 cytokines is not present in healthy individuals, and this heightened response of Th-2
cytokines to mitogens occurs only in individuals with asthma. (See Exhibit D.) Based upon this
study, it can be reasonably expected that the stress, both acute and chronic, that would result
from Mr. Ramirez’s removal would cause Mrs. Ramirez and her children’s conditions to worsen,
potentially to the point that they become life-threatening.
In Matter of Jose Velasquez-Herrera, 26 Immig. Rptr. B-1-46 (BIA Sep. 2002), the respondent
had two U.S. citizen children, both of whom had “spent their formative years in the United
States,” been educated in English, and were integrated into the American lifestyle. The BI stated
that if the respondent were deported to Mexico, the children would be left with their mother in
the United States, ensuring family separation. The children had a close relationship with their
father, and the BIA noted that family separation is not to be taken lightly. It was found that the
children would suffer extreme hardship if they were separated from their parent in the case of his
deportation. These factors are essentially identical to the Ramirez children. While Mr.
Ramirez’s three U.S. citizen children are not qualifying relatives for the purposes of this waiver,
any hardship suffered by them will be felt, and therefore suffered by, Mrs. Ramirez. As the
saying goes, “a mother is only as happy as her unhappiest child.”
Along with the financial ruin and deterioration of health Mrs. Ramirez would undergo in her
husband’s absence, his removal would permanently fracture the family unit, totally destroying
the unity of this close-knit family. This disruption would continue to ripple outward; without the
full support of both Ramirez wage earners, Mrs. Babb is likely to lose her home, disrupting her
family as well. Mrs. Ramirez will be unable to afford to visit her husband in Mexico, and her
children would never again see their father. It is highly unlikely that Mr. Ramirez would be
allowed back in the United States to visit his wife and children, as the presence of immediate
family here in the States negates evidence of “proper nonimmigrant intent”, and at the very least
he would be banned from seeing his family for 10 years. As stated in H.R. Rep. No. 1199, 85th
Cong., 1st Sess. 7, reprinted in 1957 U.S. Code, Cong. & Admin. News 2016, 2020, “The

5. legislative history of the Immigration and Nationality Act clearly indicates that the Congress
intended to provide for a liberal treatment of children and as concerned with the problem of
keeping families of U.S. citizens and immigrants united.” With the fundamental purpose
underlying the terms of the Act being to keep families together, it is contrary and
counterproductive to the Act remove Mr. Ramirez.
The Ramirez family sets an excellent example for other young families in their community to
follow, and they are they type of family that our great country could use more of. They are an
ambitious family, striving to improve their lives and provide better futures for their children. Mr.
Ramirez has a consistent history of employment since his arrival and no criminal history. He has
continuously provided not only for his family, but his extended family as well, and in doing so
has not incurred any outstanding debts. His is truly a model citizen and deserves a chance to stay
so that he may continue to support his family, raise his children, and be an example to the other
young men in his community.
Respectfully submitted,
Antonina Grek, Esq.