.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF J-R-R-

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: NOV. 7, 2017

APPEAL OF EL PASO, TEXAS FIELD OFFICE DECISION

APPLICATION: FORM I-601, APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY

The Applicant, a native and citizen of Mexico, currently residing in the United States, has applied to adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). A foreign national seeking to be admitted to the United States as an immigrant or to adjust status must be "admissible" or receive a waiver of inadmissibility. The Applicant has been found inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation and seeks a waiver of that inadmissibility. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 212(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver if refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative or qualifying relatives.

The Director of the El Paso, Texas, Field Office denied the application, concluding that the Applicant was inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) ofthe Act, 8 C.F.R. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), for having previously applied for a border crossing card with fraudulent employment documents. 1 The Director then determined that the Applicant had not established that denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to his LPR mother.

On appeal, the Applicant asserts that the Director did not consider the hardships that would be experienced by his· LPR spouse, in addition to those claimed by his mother. He asks that we consider whether the hardships that would be experienced by both his mother and spouse as a result of his inadmissibility establish extreme hardship.

Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LAW

Any foreign national who, by fraud or the willful misrepresentation of a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the

1 The record reflects that the Applicant was issued a border crossing card in 2013. At the time of his adjustment interview, the Applicant testified that he did not inform the consular officer who interviewed him in about his previous attempt to obtain a border crossing card as he did not remember this incident.

Matter of J-R-R-

United States or other benefit provided under the Act is inadmissible. Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act.

There is a waiver of this inadmissibility if the refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to the U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent of the foreign national. If the foreign national demonstrates the existence of the required hardship, then he or she must also show that USCIS should favorably exercise its discretion and grant the waiver. Section 212(i) of the Act.

Decades of case law have contributed to the meaning of extreme hardship. The definition of extreme hardship "is not ... fixed and inflexible, and the elements to establish extreme hardship are dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case." Matter (~f Cervantes-Gonzalez. 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565 (BIA 1999) (citation omitted). Extreme hardship exists ''only in cases of great actual and prospective injury." Matter ~f Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. 245, 246-47 (BIA 1984). An applicant must demonstrate that claimed hardship is realistic and foreseeable. !d.; see also Matter ofShaughnes.sy. 12 I&N Dec. 810, 813 (BIA 1968) (finding that the respondent had not demonstrated extreme hardship where there was "no showing of either present hardship or any hardship . . . in the foreseeable future to the respondent's parents by reason of their alleged physical defects''). The common consequences of removal or refusal of admission, which include "economic detriment ... [,] loss of current employment, the inability to maintain one's standard of living or to pursue a chosen profession, separation from a family member, [and] cultural readjustment,'' are insufficient alone to constitute extreme hardship. Matter ~f Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627 (BIA 1996) (citations omitted); but see Matter ~f Kao and Lin, 23 I&N Dec. 45, 51 (BIA 2001) (distinguishing Matter r~f Pilch 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 the qualifying relatives would relocate). Nevertheless, all "[r]elevant factors, though not extreme in themselves, must be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists." Matter ~f Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880, 882 (BIA 1994) (citations omitted). Hardship to the Applicant or others can be considered only insofar as it results in hardship to a qualifying relative. Matter ~{Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467, 471 (BIA 2002).

II. ANALYSIS

The issues before us are whether the Applicant has demonstrated that a qualifying relative in this case would experience extreme hardship if the waiver application is denied and whether he merits a favorable exercise of discretion. The Applicant does not contest his inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act for his misrepresentations in seeking a border crossing card.

A. Hardship upon Separation

On appeal, the Applicant claims that in addition to the hardships outlined by his LPR mother in a statement submitted with the waiver application, his LPR spouse will experience significant economic hardship if he is required to return to Mexico. The Applicant asserts that, with the current employment conditions in Mexico, he will not be able to earn enough to help his spouse support

2

Matter of J-R-R-

their family in the United States, and that she will experience a significant reduction in her standard of living.

In a statement submitted in support of the appeal, the Applicant's spouse states that she has been married to the Applicant for more than half her life and that she cannot imagine living without him. She reports that she worries about what will happen if he is required to return to Mexico and that these thoughts make her feel sad and vulnerable.

The Applicant's spouse also states that the Applicant's return to Mexico will have a significant negative economic impact on her and their family, as he is its principal breadwinner. She indicates that she goes to school three days a week and that her part-time job does not provide her with sufficient income to cover the family's expenses. As a result, she asserts, the Applicanfs departure from the United States will require her to discontinue her studies and deprive her of the opportunity for professional development. The Applicant's spouse further contends that it will be "very complicated" for the Applicant to find employment in Mexico that will pay him enough to meet both his and her financial needs.

In addition to the hardships claimed by the Applicant's spouse, his 83-year-old mother in the statement submitted by the Applicant at the time of filing claims that the thought of the Applicant's departure from the United States is tormenting her closely knit family and will result in emotional and psychological problems. She also contends that she has multiple medical conditions and, as a result, needs her son in the United States. The Applicant's mother further asserts that if the Applicant, who, she states, helps her financially must return to Mexico, he will not be able to assist the family in paying off its debts.

However, while we acknowledge the Applicant's spouse's and mother's claims regarding the financial, emotional, and medical hardship that will result from their separation from the Applicant. we do not find the record to support these assertions.

Although the Applicant has submitted evidence of his and his spouse's monthly bills, the record does not contain evidence that demonstrates he will be unable to obtain employment in Mexico that will allow him to assist his spouse financially in the United States, or that his spouse cannot work more than part-time hours to off-set the loss of his income. The claim made by the Applicant's mother that, if he returns to Mexico, he will not be able to assist the family in paying off its debts is also not supported by the record. As just noted, the record does not establish that the Applicant will be unable to find adequately paid employment in Mexico that will allow him to provide such assistance. Neither does the record identify the family debts to which the Applicant's mother refers, nor document them.

The Applicant's spouse's and mother's claims of emotional hardship are also acknowledged, but no evidence in the record establishes the nature or extent of the emotional hardship either will experience upon separation. The record also does not support the Applicant's mother's claim that she needs the Applicant to remain in the United States because of her medical conditions. Although

3

.

Matter of J-R-R-

the record documents that the Applicant's mother has been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, hypertension, mixed hyperlipoproteineia and requires a number of medications, the medical reports submitted for the record do not reflect that the Applicant plays a role in his mother's medical care or is responsible for meeting the costs of that care. Rather, these reports reflect that it is the Applicant's sister who is responsible for overseeing their mother's healthcare needs.

Therefore, the record does not demonstrate that, individually or collectively, the financial. emotional, and medical hardships claimed by the Applicant's spouse and mother upon separation rise to the level of extreme hardship.

B. Hardship upon Relocation

On appeal, the Applicant asserts that his family will be safer in the United States than they will be in Mexico, a claim also made by his mother in identifying the hardships she will face if the waiver application is denied and she returns to Mexico with the Applicant. She asserts that she will face life-threatening safety risks from the high rates of crime and violence in Mexico, and contends that relocation will greatly increase her stress levels, potentially affecting her health. A return to Mexico, she asserts, will result in a loss of medical insurance and access to what will be "even a remotely comparable level of medical technology and expertise."

The Applicant's mother also maintains that her family members and friends, all of whom are in the United States, are very important to her and that leaving them behind will result in great emotional hardship for her. She further states that, in Mexico, her standard of living will drop dramatically as a result of the difficulty that the Applicant will have in finding adequately paid employment, and that she will be forced to live in sub-standard conditions. She additionally contends that the economic hardship she will experience will prevent her from meeting her financial obligations in the United States. The Applicant's mother asserts that, in Mexico, she will have to work at a "dead-end" job just to survive.

We find the hardships enumerated by the Applicant's mother, specifically the dangers of returning to the State of her home prior to coming to the United States,2 as well as her medical conditions and her advanced age, when considered in the aggregate, support a finding of extreme hardship. Nevertheless, we cannot conclude that a denial of the waiver application in this matter will result in extreme hardship for the Applicant ' s mother as the record does not demonstrate that it is her intention to return to Mexico if his inadmissibility is not waived, or that her relocation will actually occur.

Here, although the Applicant's mother's statement offers multiple reasons why relocation will result in extreme hardship for her, it does not indicate that she intends to return to Mexico with the Applicant if the waiver application is denied. Moreover, we find her strong family ties to the United

2 We note that the August 22, 2017, update of the U.S. Department of State's travel warning for Mexico reflects that criminal activities and violence remain an issue through the State of and its major cities.

4

Matter of J-R-R-

States, including two adult children other than the Applicant, and her multiple medical conditions, which are being treated in the United States, to make relocation to Mexico unlikely. Therefore, as the record does not clearly establish that the Applicant's mother intends to return to Mexico if the waiver application is denied, we cannot find the Applicant to have demonstrated that she will experience extreme hardship upon relocation.

As the Applicant has not established extreme hardship to a qualifying relative, we will not consider whether he warrants a waiver in the exercise of discretion.

III. CONCLUSION

The record reflects that the Applicant is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act for having applied for a border crossing card using fraudulent employment documentation. The record does not establish that the Applicant's qualifying relatives will experience extreme hardship if they remain in the United States without the Applicant. Although the Applicant has demonstrated that his LPR mother will suffer extreme hardship if she relocates to Mexico following the denial of the waiver application, he has not established that she intends to do so. Accordingly, we do not find the record to demonstrate that the Applicant's inadmissibility will result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter of J-R-R-, ID# 608617 (AAO Nov. 7, 2017)

5