 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(October 2011) |
Extreme Hardship is a legal term in the United States of America's Immigration Law.
| | This article needs additional citations for verification .(October 2011) |
Extreme Hardship is a legal term in the United States of America's Immigration Law.
In U.S. Immigration law effects of certain grounds to deportability and inadmissibility can be waived, [1] under the discretion of the USCIS adjudicator or immigration court. Several waivers are available by the statute of immigration codes while some other require showing "extreme hardship" potentially caused to a qualifying family member (the US citizen or legal permanent resident's close relatives) of the defendant (person excluded from admission or being removed).
Note that the hardship to the defendant is not relevant here, only the hardship caused to the qualifying family by removing the defendant or excluding him from admission. The waivers are governed by INA 212 and INA 237 (potentially some others: add?). The United States Waiver of Inadmissibility application [2] is required for INA 212 waivers, while INA 237 waivers do not have such application.
Here is a quote from BIA (Board of Immigration Appeals) rejecting appeal of a waiver:
"U.S. court decisions have repeatedly held that the common results of deportation or exclusion are insufficient to prove extreme hardship. See Hassan v. INS, 927 F.2d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 1991). For example, Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627 (BIA 1996), held that emotional hardship caused by severing family and community ties is a common result of deportation and does not constitute extreme hardship. In addition, Perez v. INS, 96 F.3d 390 (9th Cir. 1996), held that the common results of deportation are insufficient to prove extreme hardship and defined extreme hardship as hardship that was unusual or beyond that which would normally be expected upon deportation. Hassan v. INS, supra, held further that the uprooting of family and separation from friends does not necessarily amount to extreme hardship but rather represents the type of inconvenience and hardship experienced by the families of most aliens being deported. The AAO recognizes that the applicant's spouse and/or children would likely endure hardship as a result of separation from the applicant.
However, their situation, if they remain in the United States, is typical to individuals separated as a result of deportation or exclusion and does not rise to the level of extreme hardship."
There are two levels of qualifying family members, depending on what grounds the waiver is for.
In case of INS 212(i) or 237 (other?):
Additionally, in case of 212(h) waivers
A green card, known officially as a permanent resident card, is an identity document which shows that a person has permanent residency in the United States. Green card holders are formally known as lawful permanent residents (LPRs). As of 2023, there are an estimated 12.7 million green card holders, of whom 9 million are eligible to become United States citizens. Approximately 18,700 of them serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, enacted as division C of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, made major changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). IIRAIRA's changes became effective on April 1, 1997.
An Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility is an application for legal entry to the United States made by an individual who is otherwise inadmissible on one or more grounds. The application is submitted to the consular office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office or immigration court considering the immigrant visa or adjustment of status application.
Parole, in the immigration laws of the United States, generally refers to official permission to enter and remain temporarily in the United States, under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), without formal admission, and while remaining an applicant for admission.
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the United States Congress in 2001 as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It has ten titles, each containing numerous sections. Title IV: Protecting the Border aims to prevent terrorism in the USA through immigration regulations. The provisions of the title generally increase the difficulty of entering the country for those known to have, or suspected of having, terrorist intent.
The V visa was a temporary visa available to spouses and minor children of US lawful permanent residents. It allowed permanent residents to achieve family unity with their spouses and children while the immigration process took its course. It was created by the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000. The Act is to relieve those who applied for immigrant visas on or before December 21, 2000. Practically, the V visa is currently not available to spouses and minor children of LPRs who have applied after December 21, 2000.
The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA) is a United States federal law that amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 regarding acquisition of citizenship by children of US citizens and added protections for individuals who have voted in US elections in the mistaken belief that they were US citizens. The law modified past rules for child citizenship. Under the CCA, certain children born outside the US who did not obtain citizenship at birth may obtain citizenship automatically after admission as permanent residents (CCA § 101) or may be eligible for expeditious naturalization (CCA § 102). The act also implemented protections for some individuals who have voted or claimed to be US citizens as a result of a good faith mistake (CCA § 201).
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that the standard for withholding of removal, which was set in INS v. Stevic, was too high a standard for applicants for asylum to satisfy. In its place, consistent with the standard set by the United Nations, the Court in held that an applicant for asylum in the United States needs to demonstrate only a "well-founded fear" of persecution, which can be met even if the applicant does not show that he will more likely than not be persecuted if he is returned to his home country.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court shifted the balance toward adjudications made by the INS and away from those made by the federal courts of appeals when aliens who had been ordered deported seek to present new evidence in order to avoid deportation. The Court ruled that courts must review the Board of Immigration Appeals's decision to deny motions to reopen immigration proceedings—the name of the procedural device used to present new evidence to immigration officials—for abuse of discretion.
Adjustment of status in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States refers to the legal process of conferring permanent residency upon any alien who is a refugee, asylee, nonpermanent resident, conditional entrant, parolee, and others physically present in the United States.
Cancellation of removal is a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States that allows some aliens who are in removal proceedings, who have lived in the United States for a long period of time and meet certain other conditions, to apply to remain in the United States and have the removal proceedings terminated. Cancellation of removal was crafted by the U.S. Congress to replace "suspension of deportation," a similar form of relief available prior to April 1, 1997.
Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States, and until 1976 in Canada, that refers to "an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community". This term appears in U.S. immigration law beginning in the 19th century. Moral turpitude laws typically deal with legal, judicial, and business related transgressions. Moral turpitude laws should not be confused with laws regarding social morality, violations of which are more commonly called public order, morality, decency, and/or vice crimes.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case involving habeas corpus and INA § 212(c) relief for deportable aliens.
In the United States, removal proceedings are administrative proceedings to determine an individual's removability under federal immigration law. Removal proceedings are typically conducted in Immigration Court by an immigration judge (IJ).
Under the public charge rule, immigrants to United States classified as Likely or Liable to become a Public Charge may be denied visas or permission to enter the country due to their disabilities or lack of economic resources. The term was introduced in the Immigration Act of 1882. The restriction has remained a major cause for denial of visas and lawful permanent residency ever since; in 1992, about half of those denied immigrant and non-immigrant visas for substantive reasons were denied due to the public charge rule. However, the administrative definition of "public charge" has been subject to major changes, notably in 1999 and 2019.
Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving deportation law and procedure. The case involved a rule adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals for determining the eligibility of certain long-term resident aliens, when they are facing deportation because of a prior criminal conviction, to apply to the Attorney General for relief. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court invalidated the BIA's "comparable-grounds rule" as arbitrary and capricious, holding that it had no rational relation to the merits of an alien's claim for remaining in the United States, nor to the policy and purposes of the immigration laws.
Consular nonreviewability refers to the doctrine in immigration law in the United States where the visa decisions made by United States consular officers cannot be challenged in the United States judicial system. It is closely related to the plenary power doctrine that immunizes from judicial review the substantive immigration decisions of the United States Congress and the executive branch of the United States government.
The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000, also known as the LIFE Act and as the Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act, along with its Amendments, made some changes to laws surrounding immigration for family members of United States citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents, as well as people eligible for employment-based immigrant visas, in the direction of making it easier for family members and immigrant workers to move to and adjust status within the United States. It was passed on December 21, 2000, as title XI of Pub. L.Tooltip Act of Congress#Public law, private law, designation 106–553 (text)(PDF).
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) is a special way for minors currently in the United States to adjust status to that of Lawful Permanent Resident despite unauthorized entry or unlawful presence in the United States, that might usually make them inadmissible to the United States and create bars to Adjustment of Status. The key criterion for SIJS is abuse, neglect, or abandonment by one or both parents.
Pereida v. Wilkinson, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) an alien seeking to cancel a lawful removal order bears the burden of showing that he has not been convicted of a disqualifying offense. An alien has not carried that burden when the record shows he has been convicted under a statute limiting multiple offenses, some of which are disqualifying, and the record is ambiguous as to which crime formed the basis of his conviction.