The HMA Law Firm - Immigration & Criminal Defense Lawyers

Call: 703.964.0245

  • Home
  • Our Team
  • Practice
    • Immigration >
      • Employment-Based Immigration >
        • The H-1B Visa
        • Investor and Intracompany Transfers (E & L Visas)
        • PERM Labor Certification >
          • Cross Chargeability
          • EB-5 Green Cards
      • Marriage & Fiancé Visas >
        • Special Service for Servicemen
        • Marriage Interview Questions
        • The I-751 Good Faith Waiver
        • Evidence for Filing an I-751
        • My I-751 Was Denied: Now What?
        • Same-Sex Marriage Immigration Issues
        • New 90 Day Rule
      • General Immigration >
        • Filing a FOIA from USCIS
        • Form G-639: How to Complete
        • Re-Entry Permits
        • TPS >
          • More on TPS
          • SYRIA TPS
          • TPS Yemen
        • U Visas
      • Legal Victories
      • How To Choose The Right Immigration Lawyer
      • Waivers (I-601/I-601A) >
        • Drunk Driving (DUI/DWI) and I-601/I-601A Waivers
      • Citizenship >
        • N-648 Medical Waivers
        • Naturalization Pitfalls
        • The Civics Test for Naturalization
        • Exceptions for English Test
        • Criminal Convictions and Naturalization
      • Mandamus: It's Taking Too Long >
        • Mandamus: What to Think, What to Expect
        • How an Immigration Writ of Mandamus Works
        • Petition for Hearing on Naturalization
      • Deportation Defense >
        • Overview of Removal Proceedings
        • Deportation: Preventive Maintenance
      • Deferred Action (DACA) >
        • To Lawyer Or Not To Lawyer
        • Applying for a Social Security Number
    • Criminal Defense >
      • Traffic Offenses
    • Learn >
      • Immigration In A Nutshell >
        • The Visa Bulletin and Family Immigration
      • Criminal Immigration Law 101 >
        • Know Your Rights
      • Eligibility for Citizenship >
        • Citizenship versus Naturalization
        • Why Become a Citizen?
  • Consult/Pay Fees
  • Testimonials
  • Careers
  • Blawg
  • En Español
    • Accion Ejecutiva
    • El Interdicto Temporal
    • Buscar Detenido
    • Reforma Inmigratoria
    • Papeles Por Los Indocumentados

The HMA Law Firm Blawg

    Question? Contact a lawyer now!

Submit

Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship

3/17/2010

16 Comments

 
One of the forms of relief some foreign nationals who unhappily find themselves in removal proceedings can apply for is called cancellation of removal.  There are two types, one for people who have a green card but stand to lose it due to some violation or criminal ground, and the other for those aliens who never had a green card.  "LPR" means "lawful permanent resident," or green card holder - so the first type is often called LPR cancellation, and the second type non-LPR cancellation.  Each one has its own requirements, but the lynchpin is usually the showing of hardship.

The law doesn't care about hardship to the foreign national.  Instead, it focuses on hardship to family members (spouses and children) who are US citizens or green card holders.  Essentially, assuming they meet the other requirements, they have to show that their removal from the United States would result in hardship to their spouse and/or children.

If it's LPR cancellation, the hardship to the family must be "extreme."  And for non-LPR cancellation, it must be "exceptional and extremely unusual."  What do these terms mean?

In short - it depends.

Part of a lawyer's job is to conduct a very thorough investigation into the personal lives of their client, to determine exactly how a foreign national's removal will impact a family.  This is one of the hardest and most challenging things for a lawyer to do.  Because every foreign national's family thinks that the hardship they would have to go through is extreme.  (And, in the opinion of this lawyer, they're usually right.)  But the law doesn't necessarily agree. These hardship standards can be very difficult to meet.

LPR cancellation's "extreme" hardship, despite the way it sounds, is actually more workable of a standard than non-LPR's "exceptional and extremely unusual" standard.  Each form of hardship must involve the examination of many factors, not the least of which is family separation, particularly where there are young US citizen children involved.  We have found it is useful (if not essentially a requirement) to have a psychiatric or psychological evaluation to determine, in medically objective terms, the effect of a family member's removal. 

These standards date back to the original Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952.  In Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2001) the Board of Immigration Appeals first considered the application of the standard for "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship." It noted that in the original Act, Congress intended for suspension of deportation (the old term for cancellation of removal) only if it would be "unconscionable" to deport the person.  According to the Board, this standard was meant to be very high indeed.  Yet Board case law from 1952 onward shows that in practice, the standard was (comparatively) not that difficult to meet.  In addition, it used to be relevant to show hardship to the foreign national in addition to the hardship to the family.

That all changed in 1996.  With the passage of IIRAIRA, the old suspension of deportation form of relief was replaced by the new scheme of cancellation of removal, one for LPR's and another for non-LPR's.  No longer would hardship to the foreign national be considered, no matter how extreme or exceptional it was.  In Monreal, the Board attempted to define the meaning of "extreme" and "exceptional and extremely unusual."

And here's the main point: They are both difficult, high standards.  Much higher than a mere showing of hardship.  But not necessarily to show that it would be "unconscionable." For both types of removal, there is a focus on the raw level of hardship, and it has to be pretty extreme.

For non-LPR cancellation, however, there is another focus.  That is the uniqueness of the hardship.  The year after Monreal, the Board considered two more cases to further define what "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" means.  These two cases were Matter of Andazola, 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) and Matter of Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2002).  The Board found that “the hardship standard is not so restrictive that only a handful of applicants, such as those who have a qualifying relative with a serious medical condition, will qualify for relief.” Recinas at 470.  Recinas, which is the most recent of these three cases, noted further that any review of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” decisions from the Immigration Judges would start with a consideration of the factors in Monreal and Andazola. 

So what types of factors were looked at in these three cases?  Things like how foreign the culture would be to the US citizen children.  Financial and emotional support.  Family separation.  Family support in the US versus in the country of removal.  Educational opportunities for the children.  Medical conditions.  Whether the foreign national had any other form of relief available.  Quite literally, almost anything could be considered, but these factors would definitely be looked at.  Facts must be independently considered, and the hardship evaluated in the aggregate (per Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880 (BIA 1994).

And once looked at, how would they be applied?  In the non-LPR cancellation scenario, the court will ask not only how hard would it be, but how unusual is the hardship.  In other words, removal almost always results in financial hardship.  There is almost always some degree of cultural readjustment.  There is almost always a loss of family support.  So if that's all that's there, then even if the hardship is extreme, cancellation will likely not be granted because these hardships, while extreme, are not unusual.

Contrast that with the case of a single mother with, say, 6 children who don't speak the language of the removal country.  Or where there's only one child but the child is autistic and there is no treatment for this condition in the country of removal.  These types of hardship are not as run-of-the-mill.  Caring for 6 children is not the same as caring for 1 or 2.  Assuming other requirements are met, these scenarios are more likely to result in the grant of cancellation of removal.

These are tough cases.  The burden is high, and the proof is very detailed.  We hope that legislation might be passed to allow the court to consider the hardship to the foreign national, because applying legal blinders to this hardship necessarily means that the hardship analysis will be shortsighted and incomplete.  If you are in removal proceedings, cancellation is one option that can work to save your life in the United States when there are no other options available.
16 Comments

The BIA Resolves an Impasse They Created

3/1/2010

1 Comment

 
It's always nice to share good news.  HMALF attorney Hassan Ahmad just completed a brief for an foreign national whose green card application had been stuck in limbo for 5 years.

The reason?  No one thought they had jurisdiction to decide his application!  This is what happens when your system is made up of so many parts that don't always work together.  It's kind of like driving a car pressing the gas and the brake at the same time.

In this case, it has to do with certain aliens in removal proceedings who have ported employers under INA 204(j).  This section of law was passed as part of the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (often abbreviated "AC21") and helps remedy the interminably long process of getting a green card based on employment by a US employer.  Since these cases took so long, aliens took a big risk: there was no guarantee the employer would still be around by the time the government was able to decide his green card application.  So 204(j) allows aliens who have a green card application pending for more than 180 days to switch employers, so long as the new position is "the same or substantially similar occupation" as the one for which he was originally petitioned for.

The problem arose in the case of an alien in removal proceedings.  An employer petition is filed with USCIS, which is the only agency that can decide that petition.  Once an alien is in removal proceedings, the immigration judge is the only one who can decide the alien's green card application, and USCIS has no power to do so.

Ordinarily then, an immigration judge will wait for the petition to be approved or denied by USCIS, and then decide the green card application accordingly.  But when an alien changes employers, then someone has to judge whether the new position is the "same or substantially similar" occupation as the original.  Who decides? 

Well, USCIS refused to do so.  In 2005 the Board of Immigration Appeals decided Matter of Perez Vargas, 23 I&N Dec. 829 (BIA 2005), and said that immigration judges couldn't either.  So employment sponsored aliens in removal proceedings were at an impasse.  No one would adjudicate their green card applications!

Happily, the Board reversed itself.  After Perez Vargas was shot down by the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Circuits, on January 21, 2010 the Board decided Matter of Marcal Neto, 23 I&N Dec. 169 (BIA 2010), concluding that immigration judges do in fact have the jurisdiction over 204(j) employer ports.

Great news for an undoubtedly large class of aliens whose files likely landed in the office of a Detention & Removal officer.  If you are (or were) in removal proceedings and your case was denied or administratively closed because the Court concluded it couldn't decide your application because you switched employers, contact an attorney now.
1 Comment
    DISCLAIMER: If a blog post you read here contains case results, be advised that case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.

    Authors

    Sharifa Abbasi, Esq.
    Hassan M. Ahmad, Esq.
    Humza Kazmi, Esq.
    Faisal Khan
    ​Valeria Prudencio
    Carly Stadum-Liang, Esq.

    Archives

    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    May 2014
    April 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    April 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    August 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    July 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010

    Categories

    All
    Appellate
    Asylum
    CBP
    Citizenship
    Constitutional Rights
    Criminal
    DACA
    Deportation
    Family
    Framing
    General
    H 1B
    H-1B
    Hma Law Firm
    Immigration
    Immigration Policy
    Immigration Reform
    International
    Interns
    Muslim Ban
    National Security
    Politics
    Removal
    Syria
    Tanton FOIA Lawsuit
    Trump
    Waivers

    RSS Feed

Quick Links

  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • Executive Action
  • Consult

Contact Info

6 Pidgeon Hill DR., Suite 330,
Sterling, VA 20165, USA

Tel:  703.964.0245

Fax: 703.997.8556
Email: [email protected]

Subscribe to the HMA LawFeed

Picture

​Pay Fees Here

Book you consult online by clicking on this link now!

©2009 - 2021 by Hassan M. Ahmad. All rights reserved. No portion of this website may be copied or reproduced for any purpose without express written permission.

Photos from Beshroffline, Thorne Enterprises, alex-s, swanksalot, 401(K) 2012, hyku, Gage Skidmore, Gage Skidmore, michaeln3, Antony J Shepherd, Korean Resource Center 민족학교, Don Fulano, lewebafricain, Images_of_Money, Lord Jim, Kevinth Nunez, Joe Crimmings Photography, Cohen.Canada, Thane Eichenauer, Gage Skidmore, CGP Grey, digitalshay, anokarina, Debbie Ramone, slightly everything, loop_oh, aaron_anderer, U.S. Marshals Service, tsuacctnt, Andrew Feinberg, Official U.S. Navy Imagery, Soggydan, Keith Bacongco, photosteve101, Emery Co Photo, futureatlas.com, david_terrar, weiss_paarz_photos, juanktru, Anh Le Tran's Photogphy, Amanda M Hatfield, IcronticPrime, Fibonacci Blue, blvesboy, Carl Montgomery, zappowbang, khawkins04, kennethkonica, opensourceway, Supernico26, mynameisharsha, JBrazito, Glyn Lowe Photoworks, Justin A. Wilcox, Wesley Fryer, MAClarke21, khalid Albaih, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Rod Waddington, CreditDebitPro, amtec_photos, Ungry Young Man, greencandy8888, Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com, Andrew Cheal, Jens Rost, Tiocfaidh ár lá 1916, State Farm, Daquella manera, wahousegop, ShanMcG213, IndivisibleSF, gruntzooki, Abode of Chaos