U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF M-L-R-R-

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: JUNE 15,2018

APPEAL OF LAS VEGAS, NEVADA FIELD OFFICE DECISION

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

The Applicant, a 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 adjust status must be "admissible" or receive a waiver of inadmissibility. The Applicant has been found inadmissible for unlawful presence and seeks a waiver of that inadmissibility. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v). 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 Las Vegas, Nevada Field Office denied the application, concluding that the Applicant was inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Act for accruing unlawful presence in the United States of more than 1 year and seeking admission within 10 years of her last departure. The Director then determined that the Applicant had not established that denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to her LPR spouse, the only qualifying relative.

On appeal, the Applicant submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director did not consider all the evidence in denying her waiver application.

Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LAW

A foreign national who has been unlawfully present in the United States for 1 year or more, and who again seeks admission within 10 years of the date of departure or removal from the United States, is inadmissible. Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the Act. A foreign national is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if present in the United States after the expiration of the period of authorized stay or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. Section 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) of the Act. This inadmissibility may be waived as a matter of discretion if refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent. Section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v).

Mauer of M-L-R-R-

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 of 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 of 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 of Shaughnessy, 12 J&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 of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627 (BIA 1996) (citations omitted); but see Matter of Kao and Lin, 23 J&N Dec. 45, 51 (BIA 2001) (distinguishing Matter of 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 of Ige, 20 J&N Dec. 880, 882 (BlA 1994) (citations omitted). Hardship to the Applicant or others can be considered only insofar as it results in hardship to a qualifying relative. Matter of Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467,471 (BIA 2002).

II. ANALYSIS

The Director found the Applicant inadmissible for having accrued unlawful presence of more than · one year in the United States; specifically for entering the United States in 2002 as a B-2 visitor but not departing until 2005. The Applicant does not contest the finding of inadmissibility on appeal. Thus, the Applicant must demonstrate that denial of the application would result in extreme hardship to her spouse. An applicant may show extreme hardship in two scenarios: 1) if the qualifying relative remains in the United States separated from the applicant and 2) if the qualifying relative relocates overseas with the applicant. Demonstrating extreme hardship under both of these scenarios is not required if an applicant's evidence demonstrates that one of these scenarios would result from the denial of the waiver. The applicant may meet this burden by submitting a statement from the qualifying relative certifying under penalty of perjury that the qualifying relative would relocate with the applicant, or would remain in the United States, if the applicant is denied admission. 9 USC!S Policy Manual B 4(B), https:// www.uscis.gov/lcgal-resources/policy-memoranda.

In the present case, the record contains no statement from the Applicant's spouse indicating whether she intends to remain in the United States or relocate to Mexico if the Applicant's waiver application is denied. The Applicant must therefore establish that if she is denied admission, her spouse would experience extreme hardship both upon separation and relocation. To show this, with the waiver application the Applicant submitted affidavits from herself and her spouse, financial documentation, medical documentation, country information for Mexico, letters of support from friends, and . photographs. On appeal, the Applicant submits an affidavit.

2

Matter of M-L-R-R-

With respect to separation, the Applicant and her spouse assert that they are emotionally supportive of each other, describe each other as the main companion on whom each relies, and contend that they helped each other overcome many obstacles. The Applicant and her spouse maintain that they each have medical issues, debts, and now only one income. They each describe the spouse injuring her shoulder in 2015 at work, leading to therapy and surgery, and eventually a "buyout" from her employer in 2017 so she is no longer working. They also maintain that the spouse takes medication for pain, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. The Applicant and her spouse point out that the Applicant was injured in a traffic accident in 2014 leading to back, neck, and shoulder pain. They submit medical documentation for each showing medical visits, consultations, prescriptions, and therapy for their respective injuries. The Applicant and her spouse contend that they now live only on the Applicant's limited income as a cosmetologist and are falling deeper into debt. They list their estimated monthly expenses, including one account turned over to a collections department. Among the financial documents they submitted are a 2016 form 1040 income tax return, pay statements for the spouse from 2015, as well as a rental lease and billing statements from 2017.

The assertions of hardship due to separation are not sufficiently supported by the record. We recognize that the spouse will experience difficulties due to separation from the Applicant and that the Applicant provides emotional help for her spouse. However, the declarations by the Applicant and her spouse do not provide detail and offer little insight about the emotional'hardship the spouse would suffer and how it would affect her daily life. Documentation indicates that the spouse had

· medical care for her shoulder injury, but the Applicant does not show that her spouse needs treatment that requires the Applicant's presence in the United States or that her spouse is unable to obtain any assistance from other family members living in the United States who are referenced in the record.

The spouse also maintains that she depends financially on the Applicant as she would be unable to support herself and she provides a list of monthly expenses. However, the record contains few financial documents in support of this assertion. The record contains a single income tax return, billing statements for single months, and pay statements from 2015. The spouse contends that she cannot work due to injury and the record indicates that the spouse took an employer buyout in lieu of rehabilitation, but does not indicate if the spouse receives any other related worker's compensation. The.record does not present a clear picture of the spouse's overall financial situation and is therefore insufficient to establish this hardship.

In sum, although we recognize that the spouse will experience some difficulties due to separation from the Applicant, the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that the spouse's emotional, medical, and financial hardship, considered individually and cumulatively, would go beyond the common results of inadmissibility or removal and rise to the level of extreme hardship.

The Applicant and her spouse claim that the spouse would experience extreme hardship if she relocates to Mexico with the Applicant. The spouse states that she fears relocating due to a lack of adequate medical care, violence, and corruption there, and separation from her family in the United

3

Matter of M-L-R-R-

States. However, the Applicant has not demonstrated extreme hardship to a qualifying relative upon separation, and, as stated above, the record does not contain any statement or evidence that her spouse would rel<_!cate with her to Mexico if she is denied admission. Even if the record established extreme hardship to the Applicant's spouse upon relocation, in the absence of a statement that she intends to relocate with her, we cannot conclude that such hardship would actually result from denial of the waiver application.

As the Applicant has not established extreme hardship to her spouse in the event of separation, and in the absence of any evidence that her spouse would relocate to Mexico with her, we cannot conclude that the denial of the waiver application would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. As such, no purpose would be served in determining whether the Applicant merits a waver as a matter of discretion.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter of M-L-R-R-, 10# 1525922 (AAO June 15, 2018)

4