U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF R-H-C-

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: OCT. 5, 2017

APPEAL OF DENVER, COLORADO 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. 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 unlawful presence and seeks a waiver ofthat inadmissibility. See 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 (USC IS) may grant this discretionary waiver if refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative or qualit)'ing relatives.

The Director of the Denver, Colorado, Field Office denied the waiver application, concluding that the record did not establish, as required, that the denial of the waiver would result in extreme hardship to the Applicant's spouse.

On appeal, the Applicant submits additional evidence and asserts that her spouse would experience extreme hardship if she is not permitted to remain in the United States.

Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LAW

A foreign national who was unlawfully present in the United States for a period of more than 180 days but less than one year, voluntarily departed the United States prior to the commencement of proceedings under section 235(b )(1) or section 240 of the Act, and again seeks admission within three years of the date of such departure or removal, 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 a(ter the expiration of the period of authorized stay or if 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) ofthe Act.

Matter of R-H-C-

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." Maller ol 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, 246-4 7 (BIA 1984 ). An applicant must demonstrate that claimed hardship is realistic and foreseeable. !d.; see also Matter olShaughnes,\y, 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 of Pilch. 21 I&N Dec. 627 (BIA 1996) (citations omitted); but see Matter of Kao and Lin, 23 I&N Dec. 45, 51 (BIA 2001) (distinguishing Matter ol 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 ql 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 o{Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467, 471 (BIA 2002).

II. ANALYSIS

The issue on appeal is whether the Applicant's spouse would experience extreme hardship if the waiver application is denied. The Applicant does not contest the finding of inadmissibility for unlawful presence under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) ofthe Act. which is supported by the record. 1 The claimed hardships to the Applicant's spouse upon either separation or relocation are emotional. medical, financial, and physical.

The record contains, but is not limited to: birth and marriage certificates; identity documents; written statements from the Applicant, her spouse, their daughter, and friends; medical records; psychological evaluations of her spouse; financial, employment, and business records; photographs; and articles about conditions in Mexico.

We have reviewed all the evidence in the record, and we find that it does not establish that the claimed hardships rise to the level of extreme when considered both individually and cumulatively.

1 The Applicant was admitted into the United States as a B-2 visitor in July 1997, but testified before USClS that she overstayed her period of authorized stay and remained in the United States until October or November 1998. thus accruing over 180 days, but less than 1 year, of unlawful presence. She then reentered the United States in April 1999 without being inspected, admitted or paroled.

2

.

Matter of R-H-C-

The Applicant must demonstrate that refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to her U.S. citizen spouse, the only qualifying relative. The record ref1ects that the Applicant married her spouse in 1991 in a ceremony in Mexico. After sufTering two miscarriages, the Applicant became pregnant for a third time in 1997 and entered the United States for the duration of her pregnancy. After giving birth in the Applicant returned to Mexico with her daughter. Later in her spouse became a U.S. citizen. In 1999, the Applicant and her daughter reentered the United States and have remained here since.

The Applicant asserts that her U.S. citizen spouse would experience emotional , medicaL financiaL and physical hardship if she is not permitted to remain in the United States. Hardship to the Applicant's daughter will be considered to the extent that it affects and impacts the Applicanfs spouse.

A. Separation

The Applicant states that her spouse currently experiences anxiety and depression as a result of her unresolved immigration status. She states that these symptoms will worsen if she leaves the United States, as her spouse depends on her emotional support. She also states that separation will aggravate her spouse's medical problems, as he suffers psoriasis that is made worse by his stress, and he also has a history of back pain, elevated blood pressure, and nosebleeds. She states that, in addition to providing emotional support, she also manages her spouse's medications, which leaves him at greater risk of hardship in her absence, and therefore he is vulnerable to further medical hardship in her absence.

In support of the claimed emotional and psychological hardship, the Applicant submits two evaluations of her spouse by a licensed clinical social worker. The initial evaluation was completed in October 2016, based on a three-hour interview and a written questionnaire. The evaluator noted her spouse's symptoms, such as insomnia, forgetfulness, and irritability, and diagnosed him with major depressive disorder, single episode, mild with anxious distress; he recommended that the Applicant's spouse seek individual therapy and consultation with a physician for antidepressant medications. The evaluator described the healthy long-term, stable, and mutually supportive marriage between the Applicant and her spouse. He concluded that the Applicant's spouse would be unable to reconstruct a family and support their daughter if separated from the Applicant, noting that the Applicant's spouse does not have other family members whose support could compensate for the loss of hers. In January 2017, the Applicant's spouse was re-evaluated after a one-hour interview. The evaluator noted the Applicant's spouse's aggravated psoriasis following the Director's denial of the waiver application, and he also noted that the Applicant's spouse had started mental health counseling at a local clinic and was taking medications for his insomnia. The evaluator found that, despite the medications and counseling, the Applicant's spouse continued to display significant symptoms of depression.

However, the psychological evaluations are not sufficient to establish the emotional hardship claimed by the Applicant and her spouse. The evaluations are based on two interviews conducted

3

Matter of R-H-C-

four months apart and are not supported by the medical records. The evaluation mentions that the Applicant's spouse had begun mental health counseling, but the Applicant has not provided any documentation to support this. A Problem Report from a family clinic shows that he was not prescribed medication for his anxiety, insomnia, and psoriasis until the same date that he was interviewed for the second evaluation. While we recognize the evaluator's notes about the spouse's deteriorating symptoms as a result of situational anxiety, there is no documentation of a follow-up visit, and therefore we have no updated information about the spouse's prognoses in terms of the medication's effectiveness in managing his symptoms. The medical records also show that the Applicant's spouse last sought treatment for back pain and hypertension in 2015. and there is no evidence that these conditions would be unmanageable without the Applicant's assistance.

In his written statement, the Applicant's spouse states that if his health deteriorates as a result of his stress over the Applicant's absence, then he will become unable to work. However. he has not described having previously been incapacitated by health problems, and the evidence does not indicate that this has occurred. He was seen at the same clinic for lower back pain, psoriasis, and high blood pressure during 2015, but the record also contains payments made to him for masonry work during the same period. Neither the Applicant nor her spouse has explained how his medical problems impact his ability to work.

The Applicant's spouse also states that he would face emotional hardship as a result of his daughter's relocation to Mexico because she would leave behind her educational and professional opportunities in the United States. The record includes a written statement from their daughter, a 29-year old U.S. citizen, who describes her close relationship with both her parents and her emotional reliance on her mother. Their daughter's statement does not suggest that she would leave the United States if her mother's waiver is denied. While we recognize the close relationships and mutual affection and support within the Applicant's family, the record does not explain with sutliciently specific detail how the daughter's relocation would impact her spouse.

Regarding financial hardship, the Applicant states that, in addition to the possibility that his poor health will restrict his ability to work, he does not earn enough to support himself in the United States and his spouse in Mexico. The evidence of the Applicant's spouse's earnings is unclear: in his psychological evaluation, he claimed monthly earnings of approximately $2,500, or $30,000 annually. There are also bank deposit records that appear to correspond to payments made for masonry work; over a 1 0-month period, he deposited approximately $46,000. Without clear evidence of her spouse's income, as well as evidence of the Applicant's anticipated expenses in Mexico, we are unable to assess the financial impact of the Applicant's departure.

Based on the foregoing, the Applicant has not provided specific, probative evidence to show that her spouse would suffer medical, psychological, or financial hardships that exceed the common consequences of separation when considered either individually or in the aggregate. Therefore, we do not find that the Applicant has shown extreme hardship upon separation.

4

.

Matter of R-H-C-

B. Relocation

The Applicant has also asserted that relocating to Mexico would cause extreme hardship to her spouse. She states that the stress of relocation would adversely impact his physical and psychological health due to the loss of his income and business as well as increased risk of violent crime. In his written statement, the Applicant's spouse claims that he would be unable to find work in Mexico due to widespread age discrimination, and therefore he would be unable to provide for his family, particularly if they need medical care. He also claims he would be targeted by criminals for kidnapping or extortion because they believe that people with family in the United States are wealthy.

In support ofthese claims, the Applicant submits the psychological evaluations previously described, in which the evaluator concluded that the Applicant's spouse would face psychological distress if he accompanied the Applicant to Mexico due to conditions there. The Applicant also submits reports on criminal activity and age discrimination in Mexico.

We find that, in totality, the submitted evidence does not establish that these hardships would result or, if so, that they would rise to the level of extreme hardship. For the reasons previously described-i.e., the lack of corroborating records from counselors or physicians-the psychological evaluations do not establish that the emotional or psychological hardships would exceed the common difficulties associated with relocation. The Applicant also has not explained or shown that her spouse would be unable to obtain any necessary medical treatment in Mexico.

The Applicant's spouse describes general concerns and fear for his and his family's safety, and the submitted reports reflect high levels of violent crime by drug-trafficking organizations. We acknowledge the U.S. Department of State's Mexico travel warning, issued in August 2017, concerning threats to safety and security posed by organized criminal gro1:1ps in certain places in that country, including portions of the Applicant's home state of But these reports do not establish how the Applicant's spouse would be affected: the travel warning makes recommendations for certain areas of but the Applicant has not asserted or shown that she and her spouse would reside in these specific areas, or that they could not reside in a safer part of Mexico.

The record is also insufficient to establish the financial impact of relocation. The Applicant submitted records that her spouse has formed a limited liability company in Colorado, but there are no records of this entity doing business. The Applicant also submitted a report describing age discrimination by employers in Mexico, but the article does not include any specific statistics or sources to establish the prevalence of this discrimination. As previously stated, the Applicant has not provided evidence of the anticipated costs and expenses associated with relocation. Accordingly, we are unable to assess the claimed financial hardship.

2 Department of State, "Mexico Travel Warning,'' Aug. 22, 2017, available at https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/ en/alertswarnings/mexico-travel-warning.html.

Matter of R-H-C-

In sum, the claimed hardships to the Applicant's spouse upon relocation to Mexico are not supported by probative evidence. The record either contains insufficient evidence to establish the hardships claimed, or, for the hardships demonstrated, does not show that they rise to the level of extreme hardship when considered both individually and cumulatively.

III. CONCLUSION

The record does not establish that refusal of a waiver would result in extreme hardship to the Applicant's spouse whether he remained in the United States or relocated to Mexico.

As the Applicant has not demonstrated extreme hardship to a qualifying relative or qualifying relatives, we need not consider whether the Applicant wan-ants a waiver in the exercise of discretion. The application remains denied.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter of R-H-C-, 10# 582694 (AAO Oct. 5, 2017)