U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF G-E-B-

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: FEB. 21.2018

APPEAL OF HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT FIELD OFFICE DECISION

APPLICATION: FORM 1-601. APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY

The Applicant is a native and citizen of Brazil as well as a citizen of Italy. She currently resides in the United States and 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 li.1r fraud/misrepresentation and unlawful presence. and seeks a waiver of these inadmissibilities. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 212(i). 8 U.S.C. ~ 1182(i): section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act. 8 U.S.C. ~ 1182(a)(9)(B)(v). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS) may grant a discretionary vvaiver of these two inadmissibilities if refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative or qualifying relatives.

The Director of the Hartford. Connecticut. Field Onicc denied the application. concluding that the record did not establish. as required. that the Applicanrs qualifying relative would sutler extreme hardship if the waiver is not granted.

On appeal. the Applicant submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred by misapplying the extreme hardship standard.

Upon de nom review. we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LAW

Any foreign national who. by fraud or will fully misrepresenting a material I~Kt. seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa. other documentation. or admission into the United States or other henclit provided under the Act. is inadmissible. Section 212( a)( 6 )(C)( i) of the Act.

A foreign national who has been unlawfully present in the United States for I year or more. and who again seeks admission within I 0 years of the date of departure or removal tl·om the United States. is inadmissible. Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) ofthe Act. 8 U.S.C. ~ 1182(a)(9)(B)(i). A foreign national is deemed to he 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) ofthe Act.

Maller olG-E-B-

There is a waiver of these two grounds of inadmissibility if refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to the United States citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent of the foreign national. Once the foreign national demonstrates the resulting extreme hardship. he or she must then establish that a favorable exercise ofdiscretion is merited. Sections 212(a)(9)(R)(v) ancl212(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 arc dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case:· Matter ofCermntes-Gon::ale::. 22 l&N Dec. 560. 565 (BIA 1999) (citation omitted). Extreme hardship exists .. only in cases of great actual and prospective injury:· 1Vfafler of Ngai. 19 l&N Dec. 245. 246-4 7 (BIA 1984 ). An applicant must demonstrate that claimed hardship is realistic and foreseeable. !d: .1ee also Matter ofS!wughne.l.l_l'. 12 l&N Dec. 810. 813 (BIA 1968) (tinding 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 detects .. ). 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:· arc insunicicnt alone to constitute extreme hardship. Matter of Pilch. 21 l&N Dec. 627 (RIA 1996) (citations omitted); hut see Matter ofKao and Lin. 23 l&N Dec. 45. 51 (B!A 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]elcvant factors. though not extreme in themselves. must be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists:· Matter of !ge. 20 l&N Dec. 880. 882 ( Bl/\ 1994) (citations omitted). Hardship to the Applicant or others can be considered only insofar as it results in hardship to a qualifying relative. Mafler ofGon::ale:: Recinas. 23 l&N Dec. 467.471 (BIA 2002).

II. ANALYSIS

As stated above. the Applicant has been found inadmissible under section 212(a)(6 )(C)(i) of the Act for fraud or misrepresentation and under section 212(a)(9)( B)( i) of the Act for unlawful presence. and she does not contest the findings of inadmissibility on appcal. 1

In this case. the Applicant must demonstrate that denial of the application would result in extreme hardship to her U.S. citizen spouse. In support of her waiver application the Applicant submitted a self-affidavit. an affidavit from her spouse. a psychological evaluation of her spouse. articles related to adult separation anxiety. and country inl(mnation tor Brazil. On appeal. the Applicant submits a

1 The Director found specifically that the Applicant accrued unlawful presence in the United States of more than one year from 2002 until her departure in December 2007. And she committed fraud or misrepresentation when she entered the United States via the visa waiver program in 2015 and she denied on her Electronic System for Travel Authorization (EST A) application that she had previously remained in the United State.'> beyond her period of authoriLed stay.

.

Maffer o(Cl-E-8-

brief and refers to previously-submitted evidence. Although the Applicant correctly states on appeal that she is not required to establish extreme hardship to a qualifying relati ve in the scenario of separation and relocation, she has not identified which scenario would result if she were denied admission. Therefore, we will address each scenario. We have considered all the evidence in the record and find it insufficient to establish that the claimed hardships rise to the level of extreme hardship when considered both individually and cumulatively. As the Applicant has not demonstrated extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. we need not consider whether the Applicant meri ts a waiver in the exercise of di scretion.

On appeaL the Applicant asserts that the Director misapplied the extreme hardship standard and contends specifically· that the Director misread the psychological evaluation. The Applicant maintains that her spouse suffers mental health problems and that he would experience extreme hardship if she is unable to remain in the United States. She contends that i r her spouse remains in the United States without her he would face extreme hardship due to his mental health issues and that if he were to relocate to Brazil he would face adverse conditions and an unstable economy and government.

A. Separation

In a brief submitted with the vvaiver application the Applicant referred to her spouse·s history as a refugee. and with childhood abuse and suicidal ideation. The Applicant asserted that the psychological evaluation indicated that her spouse has severe pathologies limiting his ahility to function and she contended that her spouse's mental health is fragil e. his emotional stability results Ji·om hi s long-term relationship with her. that separation would be devastating. and that he would sutler debilitating hardship upon separation . She also asserted that. as her spouse is getting older. he needs her to look alter hi s health. emotional state. and tinances.

In his affidavit the Applicanfs spouse described growing up with hi s parents fi ghting and him developing nervous habits. He stated that since he was a child he has not been comfortable around people. but has been that \vay with the Applicant since 2002. The Applicant' s spouse asserted that separation from the A pplicant would be devastating as life would have no meaning and he \•vould be without joy. He contended that he has no social circle except for the Applicant that she gives him perspective and hope. and that without the Applicant he would be deprived of an affectionate relationship.

The psychological evaluation of the Applicant's spouse by a clinical psychologist. diagnosed him with major depressive di sorder. single episode. moderate severity. and with obsessive compulsive disorder. The evaluation provided biographical info rmation as reported hy the Applicant"s spouse and indicated that he described himself as a loner and that hi s social netv.\Jrk consisted only of the Applicant. The evaluation also stated that the Applicant"s spouse reported having once had dail y experiences of sad mood. diminished interest in previously enjoyed activities. insomnia, and fatigue. The evaluation stated that the Applicant's spouse reported that he had a bout of sadness in 1996, that he sa\\' a psychiatrist who prescribed Prozac and group therapy. and that he

.

,\1/aller o(G-E-R-

then improved but twice repeated the cycle. The record. however. contains no additional information about his condition and treatment in 1996. such as medical documentation or a specilic account offered by the Applicant"s spouse. In his affidavit the Applicant's spouse stated only that before he met the Applicant he had anxiety problems. was depressed w·hile living alone. thought about suicide. and had no support network.

In the evaluation detailed the tests administered to the Applicant's spouse and stated that test results. which indicated minimal and mild findings, should be reviewed \'\lith caution as they likely undervalued the findings. She described the Applicant"s spouse as being '"'ithdrawn and introverted. and displaying little interest in human contact or company. concluded that the spouse prefers solitude to social company and mistrusts others. hut surmised that he did not feel ill-equipped to cope with demands and despite his perceived lack of help viewed his circumstances as reasonably stable and predictable with a ··relatively trivial amount of stress .. arising from major areas of life. stated that she suspected that the Applicant's spouse was accustomed to being a loner and no longer saw it as a problem. She opined that the spouse has mental health problems that have been managed '·rather well .. hy him while married. but could resurface with elevated stress. and that considering his attachment ditlicuhies and history of depression it was likely that prolonged separation from the Applicant would create emotional hardship and lead to psychiatric decompensation.

While we acknowledge the contentions in the record about the difficulties separation from the Applicant would cause her spouse, the record does not establish that any emotional hardship would rise beyond the common results of removal or inadmissibility to the level of extreme hardship. The Applicant stated that her spouse would be destroyed if separated from her. and her spouse stated that separation would be devastating as he has no social circle except for the Applicant. However. these generalized statements provide little detail about how separation from the Applicant "vould affect her spouse's ability to function on a daily basis. We note that the Applicant and her spouse lived separately for periods of time after the Applicant returned to Brazil in December 2007 until 2010. The record does not contain evidence that during these periods without the Applicant her spouse suffered the severe psychological impact that the couple and claim would occur upon separation.

In the brief submitted with the waiver application the Applicant maintained that her spouse would face a financial impact because he supports her. and therctore separation would stretch his capacity to meet his own needs. In support of her financial hardship claims. the record contains a Form 1-&64. Affidavit of Support. the Applicant's spouse's hank statements ti·om 2016. and various income tax return forms. However. the Applicant docs not further address financial hardship to her spouse if she were to relocate to Brazil while he remained in the United States. She presents no evidence of her inability to find employment in Brazil and maintain a household for herself. The record also doesn't contain evidence of the couple"s assets and expenses to demonstrate that any financial impact of living separately would go beyond the normal consequences of separation.

4

/vfal/er o(G-E-8-

Based on evidence in the record. we cannot conclude that. when considered in the aggregate. any emotional and financial hardships the Applicanrs spouse would experience upon separation from the Applicant would go beyond the common results of inadmissibility or removal and rise to the level of extreme hardship.

B. Relocation

The Applicant stated that her spouse is 51 years old and has spent half of his life in the United States. has created roots here. and wants to have his life here: she contended that her spouse would have diniculty adapting to new and unfamiliar situations. The Applicant maintained that in Bra;~.il

her spouse would face dangerous conditions of high crime. worsening economy. and poor health care. and that as a construction worker he would be unable to find work that pays enough to support the family.

The Applicant stated that when she returned to Brazil due to her father's illness her spouse stayed with her despite his discomfort in unfamiliar surroundings. remaining f()r a few months each )Car from 2007 to 2010. and then remaining from 20 I 0 to 2013. The Applicant maintained that her spouse became sad because he could not provide income for the family. and he could not adjust to the culture. language. climate. and lack of job or social life. In his at1idavit the Applicant" s spouse contended that he .. can't move there .. even though he was there for years because he is getting older. more isolated tl·otn world. and unable to handle change. I Ie referred to Brazil as having chaotic politics. crime. and an awful job market.

The Applicant submitted country information for Brazil. including a World Health Organization report noting limitations on mental health care: news articles from 2016 and 2017 about Brazil's economic recession: and a 2016 U.S. Department of State report on crime and safety. particularly 111

Sao Paulo but also addressing some other areas.

We find that there is insutTicient evidence in the record to establish that the Applicant's spouse would face extreme hardship upon relocation. The Applicant provides general information about conditions in Brazil, but not specific to where she would relocate with her spouse. The Applicant and her spouse indicate that her spouse would not have access to mental health care. hut the record does not substantiate the level of care her spouse would need. Although we recogni1.e that the Applicant's spouse may not earn as much money in Brazil. the record does not show that his hardship would he greater than vvhat would normally he expected under the circumstances. .\'ee lvfaller of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627.631 (BIA 1996)(providing that the mere loss of current employment and the inability to maintain one's present standard of living do not ordinarily amount to extreme hardship). Nor does the Applicant or her spouse. beyond indicating that the spouse is now older. describe how conditions have worsened since they resided in Brazil to sueh an extent that her spouse would experience extreme hardship if he were to relocate to reside with the Applicant.

Matter o('CI-E-B-

III. CONCLUSION

The record, reviewed in its entirety, does not support a finding that the Applicant's spouse will face extreme hardship if the Applicant is denied admission to the United States. Rather. the record demonstrates that he will face no greater hardship than the unfortunate. but expected. disruptions. inconveniences. and difficulties arising whenever a spouse is removed from the United States or is refused admission. Although we are not insensitive to the Applicant's spouse's situation. the record does not establish that the hardships the Applicant's spouse would face rise to the lc\'el of "extreme" as contemplated by statute and case law.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter ofCi-E-B-. JD# 979095 (AAO Feb. 21. 20 18)