MATTER OF A-D-R-V-

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: NOV. 21, 2018

APPEAL OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FIELD OFFICE DECISION

APPLICATION: FORM 1-601, APPLICATION FOR W AIYER OF GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY

The Applicant, a citizen of the Philippines currently residing in the United States, has applied to adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident. A foreign national seeking to adjust status must be "admissible" or receive a waiver of inadmissibility. The Applicant has been found inadmissible for fraud/misrepresentation and seeks a waiver of that inadmissibility. 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 Los Angeles County, California Field Office, denied the application, concluding that the Applicant was inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act for fraud or misrepresentation. The Director then found that the Applicant had not established that her removal from the United States would result in extreme hardship to her U.S. citizen spouse, the only qualifying relative.

On appeal, the Applicant submits additional evidence and asserts that her spouse will suffer extreme hardship if she is unable to remain in the United States.

Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LAW

Any foreign national who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure ( or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under the Act, is inadmissible. Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act.

There is a discretionary waiver of this 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. Section 2 l 2(i) of the Act.

A determination of whether denial of admission will result in extreme hardship depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565 (BIA 1999)

Matter of A-D-R-V-

(citations omitted). We recognize that some degree of hardship to qualifying relatives is present in most cases; however, to be considered "extreme," the hardship must exceed that which is usual or expected. See Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627, 630-1 (BIA 1996) (finding that factors such as economic detriment, severing family and community ties, loss of current employment, and cultural readjustment were the "common result of deportation" and did not alone constitute extreme hardship). In determining whether extreme hardship exists, individual hardship factors that may not rise to the level of extreme must also be considered in the aggregate. Matter of lge, 20 I&N Dec. 880, 882 (BIA 1994) ( citations omitted).

II. ANALYSIS

The Director found the Applicant to be inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation, specifically for indicating on her nonimmigrant visa application in 20 IO that she was married when she was in fact not married at the time. The Applicant does not contest the finding of inadmissibility on appeal. The issues on appeal, therefore, are whether the Applicant has established extreme hardship to her spouse and, if so, whether she merits a favorable exercise of discretion.

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 establishes 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 USCIS Policy Manual B.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual.

In the present case, the record contains no statement from the Applicant's spouse indicating whether he intends to remain in the United States or relocate to the Philippines if the 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. With the waiver application the Applicant submitted a brief; declarations from her spouse and herself; financial documentation; a psychological evaluation of her spouse; letters of support from friends and the spouse's uncle; and civil documents. On appeal, the Applicant submits a brief; additional financial records including estimated child care costs; and country conditions information for the Philippines.

On appeal, the Applicant contends that denial of her waiver application would have dire consequences for her spouse and her two young sons (the spouse's step-sons) who are four and six years old. The Applicant contends that if the children went with her to the Philippines her spouse would lose involvement in their lives, it would limit his ability to parent, and he would fear for their safety, whereas if they remained in the United States he would be a single father financially sustaining a three-person household, so his health would deteriorate and his life would fall apart.

2

.

Matter of A-D-R-V-

In their declarations, the Applicant and her spouse describe meeting in 2012 after her boyfriend left her while she was pregnant with their second child, and that the spouse was kind, helped her with transportation needs, and their relationship developed until they married in 2016. The Applicant asserts that her spouse would be devastated if she is deported, that she usually runs the household, that he functions every day with her support, and that he would be unable to cope with worrying about her living conditions in the Philippines. The spouse describes the Applicant as his soulmate, states that she keeps him motivated, and contends that separation would be devastating to him, creating physical , emotional, and financial hardship. The Applicant indicates her spouse is a wonderful father to her children, and the spouse states that he loves his step-children as if they were his own, maintains that it tears his heart to think of being separated from them, and contends that his mental and physical health would decline due to constant worry about giving them a normal lifestyle without the Applicant.

A 2017 psychological evaluation of the spouse diagnoses him with adjustment disorder with anxiety. The evaluation shows that the spouse tested in the mild and minimal ranges of anxiety and depressive symptoms, but the therapist determined those results did not match his distress. The therapist describes the spouse as anxious and depressed, having difficulty dealing with the potential removal of the Applicant and its consequences. The therapist surmises that the spouse could not work, be in charge of the children, and manage to keep the household running without the Applicant, who he feels he cannot live without. The therapist suggests that with limited financial resources the spouse would be unable to travel to the Philippines to see the Applicant. The evaluation states that the spouse reported distancing himself from his parents to escape the impact of his mother being jailed for fraud, their divorce, and his father bringing home a new wife, and that he does not want to bring another woman into his children's lives.

The Applicant states that she is a part-time caregiver and her spouse a customer service representative earning less than $3,000 a month, so she is essential to supplement their income by caring for the children. She also contends that her income helps with household expenses and other obligations, so without it her spouse would experience financial hardship. The spouse maintains that it is difficult for him to pay bills after the first pay date of the month, so his uncle advances the money. The spouse contends that he could not pay bills on his salary alone, that he would need another full-time job to make ends meet, and that without the Applicant he would have babysitting expenses. The Applicant also refers to estimated average annual daycare costs in

of $8,000 - $10,000.

The psychological evaluation includes a list of expenses as reported by the spouse. The record otherwise contains financial documentation that includes a June 2018 check to the Applicant apparently for care giving services; two 2018 pay statements for the spouse; three 2018 utility statements; bank statements for parts of 2017 and 2018; credit card statements from 2017; and a 2016 IRS form 1040.

The affidavits from the Applicant and her spouse are general, offering little detail about the emotional support the Applicant provides to her spouse, and do not show the degree to which

.

Matter of A-D-R-V-

separation from her would affect his daily life. Furthermore, though the evaluation reflects the spouse would experience some psychological difficulties, it does not consistently show the severity of the spouse's mental health condition, or describe the impact of separation on the spouse's ability to function on a daily basis and how he would be unable to manage without the Applicant.

The Applicant has shown that if her children relocate with her the separation from his step-children will create some difficulties for the spouse. Nevertheless, the spouse does not provide detail of his relationship with the children other than taking the older child to school and babysitting the younger child, or demonstrate that the hardship of separation alone rises to the level of extreme hardship. Nor have the Applicant and her spouse shown that providing care for the children in the Applicant's absence would cause extreme hardship for the spouse.

The couple contends that the spouse depends on the Applicant's assistance financially with her income and by caring for the children. However, the spouse refers generally to expenses and otherwise the Applicant has submitted limited documentation to establish their overall financial situation. Bank account statements show various transactions, but also do not demonstrate that the spouse would be unable to meet expenses. More pertinently, the record shows that the spouse is the primary source of household income, and the single check to the Applicant does not show her overall financial contribution to the household or that without it her the spouse would be unable to meet expenses.

The Applicant refers to estimated child care costs, but she has not shown that her spouse would be unable to obtain other child care, nor has she indicated whether the father of her children assists financially. Further, the Applicant has not established that she would be unable to assist her spouse from the Philippines, as she contends. The Applicant asserts that she is not educated and refers to a study finding that uneducated workers in the Philippines experience work poverty. Her claim that she lacks education, though, is contradicted by her own statements in her visa application, wherein she indicated her occupation as internal audit - accounting and that she has a Bachelor of Science degree in commerce from the In addition, in a 2016 sworn statement taken in conjunction with her adjustment application the Applicant claimed she worked as an accountant assistant and that her purpose for getting a visa in 2010 was to travel for business.

The Applicant has shown that her spouse experiences some psychological difficulties. However, the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that his emotional and financial hardship considered individually and cumulatively would go beyond the common results of inadmissibility or removal and rises to the level of extreme hardship.

Lastly, the Applicant asserts that if her spouse relocates to the Philippines it would be difficult for him to earn an income sufficient to support the family, and the psychological evaluation indicates that the spouse reported having lived for two years in the Philippines and fears conditions of poverty and crime.

4

Matter of A-D-R-V-

However, the Applicant must establish that denial of the waiver application would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative both upon separation and relocation. As the Applicant has not established extreme hardship to her qualifying relative in the event of separation, we cannot conclude she has met this requirement. As such, no purpose would be served in determining whether the Applicant merits a waiver as a matter of discretion.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter ofA-D-R-V-, ID# 1929521 (AAO Nov. 21, 2018)

5