The officer must make extreme hardship determinations based on the factors, arguments, and evidence submitted. [1] Therefore, the officer should consider any submission from the applicant bearing on the extreme hardship determination. The officer may also consider factors, arguments, and evidence relevant to the extreme hardship determination that the applicant has not specifically presented, such as those addressed in Department of State (DOS) information on country conditions [2] or other U.S. Government determinations regarding country conditions, including a country’s designation for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Officers must base their decisions on the totality of the evidence and circumstances presented.
The common consequences of denying admission, in and of themselves, do not warrant a finding of extreme hardship. [3] The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that the common consequences of denying admission include, but are not limited to, the following:
While extreme hardship must involve more than the common consequences of denying admission, the extreme hardship standard is not as high as the significantly more burdensome “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship standard that that applies to other forms of immigration adjudications, such as cancellation of removal. [4]
The officer must consider all factors and consequences in their totality and cumulatively when assessing whether a qualifying relative will experience extreme hardship either in the United States or abroad. In some cases, common consequences that on their own do not constitute extreme hardship may result in extreme hardship when assessed cumulatively with other factors. [5]
For example, if a qualifying relative has a medical condition that alone does not rise to the level of extreme hardship, the combination of that hardship and the common consequences of inferior medical services, economic detriment, or readjusting to life in another country may cumulatively cause extreme emotional or financial hardship for the qualifying relative when considering the totality of the circumstances.
Ordinarily, for example, the fact that medical services are less comprehensive in another country is a common consequence of denying admission; but the inferior quality of medical services, considered along with the individual’s specific medical conditions, may create sufficient difficulties as to rise to the level of extreme hardship in combination with all the other consequences.
The officer must weigh all factors individually and cumulatively, as follows:
When considering the factors, whether individually or cumulatively, all factors, including negative factors, must be evaluated in the totality of the circumstances.
The chart below lists factors that an applicant might present and that would be relevant to determining whether an applicant has demonstrated extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. This list is not exhaustive; circumstances that are not on this list may also be relevant to finding extreme hardship.
The presence of one or more of the factors below in a particular case does not mean that extreme hardship would necessarily result from a denial of admission. But they are factors that may be encountered and should be considered in their totality and cumulatively in individual cases. All hardship factors presented by the applicant should be considered in the totality of the circumstances in making the extreme hardship determination.
Some of the factors listed below apply when the qualifying relative would remain in the United States without the applicant. Other factors apply when the qualifying relative would relocate abroad. Some of the factors might apply under either circumstance.
Family Ties and Impact
Social and Cultural Impact
Economic Impact
Health Conditions
and Care
Country Conditions [7]
The preceding list identifies factors that may bear on whether a denial of admission would result in extreme hardship. Below are factors that USCIS has determined often weigh heavily in support of finding extreme hardship. An applicant who seeks to demonstrate the presence of one of the enumerated circumstances must submit sufficient reliable evidence to support the existence of such circumstance(s) and show that the circumstance will cause extreme hardship to the qualifying relative. The mere presence of an enumerated circumstance does not create a presumption of extreme hardship. The ultimate determination of extreme hardship must be based on the totality of the circumstances present in the individual case.
It is important to emphasize that the enumerated circumstances listed below are specifically highlighted only because they are often likely to support findings of extreme hardship. Other hardships not enumerated may also rise to the level of extreme, even if they vary significantly than those listed below. [10]
Eligibility for an immigration benefit ordinarily must exist at the time of filing and at the time of adjudication. [11] However, considering the nature of the particularly significant factors described below, the presence of one or more of these circumstances at the time of adjudication should be considered by a USCIS officer even if the circumstance arose after the filing of the waiver request.
If a qualifying relative was previously granted Iraqi or Afghan special immigrant status, [12] T nonimmigrant status, asylum status, or refugee status in the United States from the country of relocation and the qualifying relative’s status has not been revoked, those factors would often weigh heavily in support of finding extreme hardship. [13] The existence of this circumstance normally results in hardship greater than the common consequences denying admission, whether in cases involving relocation or separation.
The prior decision to grant the qualifying relative status as an Iraqi or Afghan special immigrant, T nonimmigrant, refugee, or asylee indicates the significantly heightened risk that relocation to the country from which he or she received protection could result in retaliatory violence, persecution or other danger to the qualifying relative. This prior assessment by USCIS would often weigh heavily in support of finding extreme hardship in a case involving relocation.
The same is also true in cases involving separation. The prior assessment by USCIS with respect to the qualifying relative indicates that he or she would likely face increased difficulty returning to that country to visit the applicant, thus generally resulting in hardship that is greater than that normally present in cases involving family separation. The applicant might also show that, due to their relationship, the applicant may experience persecution or other dangers similar to those that gave rise to the qualifying relative’s underlying status. The qualifying relative in such a case may suffer additional psychological trauma due to the potential for harm to the applicant in the country of relocation.
Cases involving disabled individuals often involve hardships that rise above the common consequences. If a government agency has made a formal disability determination [14] with regard to the qualifying relative, or with regard to a family member of the qualifying relative who is dependent on the qualifying relative for care, that factor would often weigh heavily in support of finding that either relocation or separation would result in extreme hardship under the totality of the circumstances.
In cases involving either (1) relocation of the qualifying relative with a disability or (2) relocation of both the qualifying relative and the relevant family member with a disability, the applicant will need to show that the services available to the disabled individual in the country of relocation are unavailable or significantly inferior to those available to him or her in the United States. In such cases, the disability determination would often weigh heavily in support of a finding of extreme hardship.
In cases involving separation, the applicant will need to show that the qualifying relative with a disability, or the relevant family member with a disability, generally requires the applicant’s assistance for care due to the disability. Where replacement care is not realistically available and obtainable, the disability determination would often weigh heavily in support of a finding of extreme hardship.
Absent a formal disability determination, an applicant may provide other evidence that a qualifying relative or relevant individual suffers from a medical condition, whether mental or physical, that makes either travel to, or residence in, the country of relocation detrimental to the qualifying relative or family member’s health or safety. Similarly, an applicant may provide other evidence that the condition of the qualifying relative requires the applicant’s assistance for care.
Military service by a qualifying relative often results in hardships from denial of the applicant’s admission that rise above the common consequences of denying admission. If a qualifying relative is an Active Duty member of any branch of the U.S. armed forces, [15] or is an individual in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve, denial of an applicant’s admission often causes psychological and emotional harm that significantly exacerbates the stresses, anxieties and other hardships inherent in military service by a qualifying relative.
This may result in an impairment of the qualifying relative’s ability to serve the U.S. military, or to be quickly called into active duty in the case of reservists, which also affects military preparedness. This is often the case even if the qualifying relative’s military service already separates, or will separate, him or her from the applicant. In such circumstances, the applicant’s removal abroad may magnify the stress of military service to a level that would constitute extreme hardship.
DOS issues travel warnings to notify travelers of the risks of traveling to certain foreign countries. [16] Reasons for issuing travel warnings include, but are not limited to, unstable government, civil war, ongoing intense crime or violence, or frequent terrorist attacks. A travel warning remains in place until changes in circumstances sufficiently mitigate the need for such a warning. With respect to some travel warnings, DOS advises of travel risks to a specific region or regions of the country at issue.
In some situations, DOS issues travel warnings that do more than notify travelers of the risks of traveling to a particular country or region(s) within a country. Rather, DOS affirmatively recommends against travel or affirmatively recommends that U.S. citizens depart. DOS may make such travel warnings country-wide. Such travel warnings may contain language in which:
In cases where a qualifying relative would relocate to a country or region that is the subject of such DOS recommendations against travel, the travel warning would often weigh heavily in support of a finding of extreme hardship. In assessing the dangers in the country of relocation, USCIS officers should give weight to DOS travel warnings, taking into account the nature and severity of such warnings.
Generally, the fact that the country of relocation is currently subject to a DOS country-wide travel warning against travel may indicate that a qualifying relative would face significantly increased danger if he or she were to relocate to that country with the applicant. This significantly increased danger would often support a finding of extreme hardship.
If the relevant travel warning covers only a part or region of the country of relocation, the USCIS officer must determine whether the qualifying relative would relocate to the part or region that is subject to the warning. If the officer finds that this part or region is one to which the qualifying relative plans to return despite the increased danger (for example, because of family relationships or employment opportunities), that may indicate that the qualifying relative would face significantly increased danger if he or she were to relocate to that part or region. This significantly increased danger would often support a finding of extreme hardship.
Alternatively, if the officer finds that the qualifying relative would relocate to a part of the country that is not subject to the travel warning (because of the danger in the part or region covered by the travel warning or for any other reason), that indicates that the qualifying relative would generally not face significantly increased danger upon relocation.
If the officer finds that the qualifying relative would remain in the United States while the applicant returns to a country or region that is subject to a DOS warning against travel, the officer should evaluate whether the separation may result in extreme hardship to the qualifying relative. In such cases, the officer should consider the hardship to the qualifying relative resulting from the increased danger to the applicant in the relevant country or region.
USCIS recognizes the importance of family unity and the ability of parents and other caregivers to provide for the well-being of children. [17] Depending on the particular facts of a case, either the continuation of one’s existing caregiving duties under new and difficult circumstances or the need to assume someone else’s caregiving duties can be sufficiently burdensome to rise to the level of extreme hardship. The children do not need to be U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (LPRs) in such cases. [18]
In cases involving the separation of spouses in which the qualifying relative is the primary caretaker and the applicant is the primary income earner, the income earner’s refusal of admission often causes economic loss to the caregiver. Although economic loss alone is generally a common consequence of a denial of admission, depending on the particular circumstances the economic loss associated with the denial of admission may create burdens on the caregiver that are severe enough to rise to the level of extreme hardship. That can occur, for example, when the qualifying relative must take on the additional burdens of primary income earner while remaining the primary caregiver. That dual responsibility may significantly disrupt the qualifying relative’s ability to meet his or her own basic subsistence needs or those of the person(s) for whom the care is being provided. In such cases, the dual burden would often support a finding of extreme hardship. In addition, the qualifying relative may suffer significant emotional and psychological impacts from being the sole caregiver of the child(ren) that exceed the common consequences of being left as a sole parent.
In cases involving the separation of spouses in which the qualifying relative is the primary income earner and the applicant is the primary caretaker, the caretaker’s refusal of admission can result in a substantial shift of caregiving responsibility from the applicant to the qualifying relative. Such a shift may significantly affect the qualifying relative’s ability to earn income for the family; disrupt family, social, and cultural ties; or hinder the child(ren)’s psychological, cognitive, or emotional development.
The shift may also frustrate or complicate the qualifying relative’s efforts to provide a healthy, stable, and caring environment for the child(ren). Such additional emotional, psychological and/or economic stress for the qualifying relative could exceed the levels of hardship that ordinarily result from family separation, and rise to the level of extreme hardship. [19]
Under either scenario discussed above, the significant shifting of caregiving or income-earning responsibilities would often weigh heavily in support a finding of extreme hardship to the qualifying relative, provided the applicant shows:
To prove a bona fide relationship to the child(ren), the applicant and qualifying relative should have emotional and/or financial ties or a genuine concern and interest for the child(ren)’s support, instruction, and general welfare. [20] Evidence that can establish such a relationship includes (but is not limited to):
To prove the qualifying relative would take on the additional caregiving or income-earning responsibilities, the applicant needs to show that the qualifying relative either (1) is a parent of the child(ren) in question or (2) otherwise has the bona fide intent to assume those responsibilities. Evidence of such an intent could include (but is not limited to):
Below are hypothetical cases that can help officers determine when cases present factors that rise to the level of extreme hardship. These hypotheticals are not meant to be exhaustive or all-inclusive with respect to the facts or scenarios that may be presented for adjudication and that may give rise to extreme hardship. Although a USCIS officer presented with similar scenarios as those presented in the hypotheticals could reasonably reach the same conclusions described below, extreme hardship determinations are made on a case-by case basis in the totality of the circumstances. An extreme hardship determination will always depend on the facts of each individual case.
For purposes of the following hypotheticals, it is assumed that:
Tyler was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant 5 years ago. Three years after Tyler’s entry, Tyler married Pat, a U.S. citizen spouse. Tyler seeks a waiver claiming that Pat would suffer extreme hardship if Tyler were denied admission to the United States.
Pat submits a credible, sworn statement indicating that if Tyler is refused admission, Pat would relocate to Tyler’s native country. Tyler and Pat have been married for 2 years. Pat is a sales clerk. A similar job in the country of relocation would pay far less than Pat earns in the United States. In addition, although Pat has visited the country of relocation several times, Pat is not fluent in the country’s language and lacks the ties that would facilitate employment opportunities and social and cultural integration.
Tyler is a skilled laborer who similarly would command a much lower salary in the country of relocation, but who was, prior to coming to the United States, gainfully employed. The couple is renting an apartment in the United States, does not own any real estate or other significant property, and has no children. Pat and Tyler do not have any other family, either in the United States or in the country of relocation.
Analysis of Scenario 1
These facts alone generally would not favor a finding of extreme hardship. The hardships to Pat, even when aggregated, include only common consequences of relocation—economic loss and the social and cultural difficulties arising mainly from Pat ’s inability to speak the language fluently.
The facts are the same as in Scenario 1 except that Pat (who is Tyler’s U.S. citizen spouse and would relocate) has a chronic medical condition requiring regular visits to the doctor, and Tyler is an unskilled worker who would command a much lower salary in the country of relocation. In addition, Pat has family that lives nearby and is a crucial part of Tyler’s support system. Pat and Tyler are also active members of their local community and have friends who often help out when Pat’s family is not available. Based on the care received from the doctor and the support received from family and friends, Pat is able to manage the chronic condition.
Pat submits a credible, sworn statement that Pat will relocate with Tyler despite Pat’s medical condition, and the evidence shows under the totality of the circumstances that Pat will relocate with Tyler. Pat’s doctor provides a statement that confirms that Pat will continue to progress and function well if Pat keeps receiving medical treatment and the support from family and other members of Pat’s existing social support network. While the doctor cannot fully attest to the availability of care in Tyler’s native country, the doctor is able to attest that moving to another country and disrupting Pat ’s medical care and support network will cause Tyler significant difficulties. The doctor’s statement also states that Pat will likely not be able to work without the support system Pat has in the United States.
Analysis of Scenario 2
These facts would generally favor a finding of extreme hardship. The aggregate hardships to Pat now include not only the economic losses, diminution of employment opportunities, and social, cultural, and linguistic difficulties (which are generally common consequences of relocation) but also the additional medical hardship that Pat would experience if Pat relocates to Tyler’s native country. The attestation of Pat’s doctor expressing concerns about the disruption in medical care, the effect of losing support from Pat’s family and social environment, and the possibility of Pat not being able to accept employment, would generally favor a finding of extreme hardship.
Assume the facts are the same as originally presented in Scenario 1 (without the additional facts from Scenario 2), but now with the added facts that Tyler also has LPR parents who live in the United States. Pat submits a credible, sworn statement indicating that Pat would relocate with Tyler and that Tyler’s LPR parents would remain in the United States. Again, when analyzing the additional evidence under the totality of the circumstances, the the evidence shows Pat will still relocate with Tyler.
Tyler and Pat both have a close relationship with Tyler’s parents, who are elderly and non-native English speakers. Tyler regularly transports the parents to medical appointments, translates medical and other instructions, and offers them significant emotional support. As a result of the separation from Tyler and Tyler’s spouse, Tyler’s parents would suffer significant emotional hardship.
Analysis of Scenario 3
Based on the totality of the evidence presented, the addition of these facts would generally favor a finding of extreme hardship. There are now 3 qualifying relatives (Tyler’s U.S. citizen spouse and Tyler’s two LPR parents). Although the aggregated hardships to Tyler’s spouse alone (under Scenario 1) include only common consequences of a refusal of admission, aggregating those hardships with the hardships to Tyler’s elderly parents, which include the potential disruption of their medical care, loss of ability to navigate their surroundings in English, and their significant emotional hardship resulting from the loss of their child’s support, would generally tip the balance in favor of a finding of extreme hardship.
EF has lived continuously in the United States since entering without inspection 4 years ago. She has been married to GH, her U.S. Citizen husband, for 2 years. EF seeks a waiver claiming that GH would suffer extreme hardship if EF were denied admission to the United States. GH has a moderate income, and EF works as a housecleaner for low wages. GH submits a credible, sworn statement that he would remain in the United States, and thus would separate from EF, if she is denied the waiver. Upon separating, the couple would lose the income EF earns. In addition to losing EF’s income, GH is committed to sending remittances to EF once she leaves, in whatever amount GH can afford. EF and GH do not have children, and GH does not have family in the United States.
Analysis of Scenario 4
These facts alone generally would not rise to the level of extreme hardship, even if the hardships to the qualifying relative are aggregated. The hardships to GH do not rise above the common consequences of separation and economic loss.
JK has lived continuously in the United States since entering without inspection 6 years ago. She married LM, her U.S. citizen husband, 2 years ago. JK seeks a waiver on the basis that LM would suffer extreme hardship if JK were denied admission to the United States. JK and LM live near LM’s family and friends, and LM has spent little time traveling abroad. He does not speak the language of the country to which JK would return if she is denied admission, and LM’s employment opportunities in that country would be less desirable than in the United States.
Additionally, DOS has issued a travel warning that strongly advises against travel to specific regions in the country to which JK would return, including the region where her family lives. The region-specific warning affirmatively recommends against non-essential travel to that region, citing the high rate of kidnapping and murder. LM submits a credible, sworn statement indicating that due to his recent marriage, the difficulties JK would face in her country, and his commitment to supporting her however possible, he would relocate to remain with JK if she is denied a waiver.
Analysis of Scenario 5
The totality of these circumstances generally would favor a finding of extreme hardship, significantly in light of the nature and severity of the DOS travel warning. Although the other hardships present in the case are common consequences of relocation, LM has also demonstrated that he will return to the region of a country that is the subject of the DOS travel warning, which advises against non-essential travel to that region. The travel warning recommending against travel to that particular region of that country to which LM would relocate is a particularly significant factor that would often weigh heavily in support of a finding of extreme hardship. If the travel warning were less severe or only temporary, the warning would not qualify as a particularly significant factor but would be another factor to be considered in the totality of the circumstances by the officer.
Alternatively, in some circumstances where DOS has issued travel warnings with regard to a particular region of a country, the applicant and qualifying relative may relocate to a different region of the country that is not subject to a travel warning. In such a situation, the fact of the region-specific travel warning would not itself constitute a particularly significant factor; however, the hardships arising from relocating to another region of the country remains a factor to be considered and may result in a finding of extreme hardship, based on the totality of the circumstances. [22]
OP has lived continuously in the United States since entering without inspection 7 years ago. After dating and living together for 5 years, OP married her same-sex partner SQ, a U.S. citizen. OP seeks a waiver claiming that SQ would suffer extreme hardship if OP were denied admission to the United States. SQ submits a credible, sworn statement indicating that she would remain in the United States and separate from OP if the waiver is denied.
SQ owns a business in the United States, and OP has continuously supported the business, including by helping out as an office manager. SQ would not be able to keep the business running successfully without OP because of the expense of hiring an office manager. In addition, the DOS country report indicates that women in OP’s country of relocation generally may not work outside the home except in an extremely limited set of professions (such as teaching) for which OP is not qualified.
The country report also indicates that same-sex marriages are not recognized in that country, that same-sex sexual conduct is illegal, and that official societal discrimination and harassment (in some circumstances even giving rise to physical threats or harm) based on sexual orientation or gender identity is prevalent in many areas of life.
Based on these factors, SQ fears OP would be discriminated against and potentially be at risk of physical harm based on her sexual orientation. SQ has been in therapy due to depression and anxiety after she learned that her wife may be denied admission to the United States and that her wife would have to remain in a country where she risks discrimination and physical harm. The couple does not provide other evidence of hardship.
Analysis of Scenario 6
These facts would generally favor a finding of extreme hardship. SQ would face serious economic detriment if OP is denied admission. In addition, the country reports show that SQ’s marriage to OP would not be recognized in OP’s native country, and that OP’s marriage to a person of the same gender is a common cause for social ostracism, discrimination, and potential physical danger in OP’s native country. The country reports further show that OP’s access to education, employment and health care could be limited due to OP’s sexual orientation and gender, thereby negatively affecting OP’s subsistence.
SQ would face psychological trauma based on the fear that OP would be harassed or threatened because of her sexual orientation. SQ’s trauma based on her fear that OP will be ostracized and persecuted in OP’s native country based on her sexual orientation and gender are factors that in the totality of circumstances would ordinarily rise to the level of extreme hardship.
TU married his U.S. citizen wife, VW, 3 years ago. TU seeks a waiver on the ground that VW would suffer extreme hardship if TU were denied admission to the United States. Before becoming a U.S. citizen, VW and some members of her family fled persecution from her native country, and they were granted asylum in the United States. TU is of the same nationality. VW submits a credible, sworn statement that she would remain in the United States and separate from TU if the waiver is denied. The evidence also supports the conclusion that the return of TU to that country would cause VW particular anxiety and psychological stress, due both to the limitations on VW’s ability to visit her husband and to the harm TU may face in the country of return due to his relationship to VW.
Analysis of Scenario 7
These facts generally would favor a finding of extreme hardship. TU and VW are of the same nationality, and TU would return to the country from which VW fled. The fact that VW was previously granted asylum from the country of relocation is a particularly significant factor that would often weigh heavily in support of a finding of extreme hardship. The fact that VW and members of her family were previously granted asylum from the country of return shows that she is at risk of persecution if she were to return to that country to even visit her husband.
She has also submitted credible evidence indicating that she would suffer additional anxiety and psychological stress from the harm her husband may face due to his relationship with her and her family. The totality of these circumstances, including the particularly significant factor of VW’s grant of asylum, would generally result in a finding of extreme hardship.
XY married her U.S. citizen husband, ZA, 9 years ago. XY seeks a waiver on the basis that ZA would suffer extreme hardship if XY were denied admission to the United States. XY and ZA have a 3-year old son and a 2-year old daughter. XY submits credible evidence showing that she is the primary caretaker of the children and that ZA is the primary income earner. His wages are not sufficient to pay for childcare and the couple does not have family that can provide childcare for the children.
ZA submits a credible, sworn statement indicating that he will remain in the United States with their children separated from XY if the waiver is denied. The evidence also indicates that XY will have very limited employment opportunities in the country of return because of her limited education. Whatever income XY will be able to earn in the country of return will be spent on her subsistence and will be insufficient to allow her to contribute to childcare or other family needs in the United States. Due to the lack of childcare options available to ZA, he will be required to become the sole caregiver of the children, while simultaneously striving to maintain his role as the family’s sole income earner.
If ZA is unable to retain his job due to the assumption of primary caregiving responsibilities, he will lose the income necessary to support his children. The dual burden of being both the primary income earner and sole caregiver will create significant psychological, emotional, and financial stresses for ZA. Additionally, the evidence shows that the displacement of childcare would impact the emotional state and development of the children, which would require further care and attention on the part of ZA.
Analysis of Scenario 8
These facts would generally favor a finding of extreme hardship. Although ZA’s children are not qualifying relatives for purposes of demonstrating extreme hardship in this case, the hardship to ZA caused by becoming primarily responsible for the children’s care, while maintaining his role as primary income earner, would implicate the particularly significant factor for substantial displacement of care of the applicant’s children.
In this case, ZA and XY submitted credible evidence that XY cannot contribute to the family’s needs, that ZA is unable to earn sufficient income for family needs if he must assume primary caregiving responsibilities, and that ZA otherwise lacks the resources or support network to replace either the primary caregiving responsibilities he would need to assume or the primary income-earning role that has been the source of the family’s support.
The evidence also shows that the displacement of childcare would impact the children in a manner that would require additional care and attention by ZA and would thus further impact ZA’s ability to care for his children. Absent other facts that diminish the impacts of the separation, this scenario would generally rise to the level of extreme hardship based on the totality of the circumstances.
Alternatively, this particularly significant factor may also be presented in a case where the applicant is the primary income earner and the qualifying relative is the primary caretaker of the children. If the applicant is refused admission, the qualifying relative could be required, depending on the circumstances, to take on the additional responsibilities of being the primary income earner in addition to continuing his or her role as primary caretaker.
In cases where this heightened responsibility would threaten the qualifying relative’s ability to meet basic subsistence needs for the family, the significant emotional and psychological stress caused by the added burdens would often weigh heavily in support of a finding of extreme hardship. [23]
[^ 1] See Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez (PDF), 22 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), aff’d, Cervantes-Gonzales v. INS, 244 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2001). See Matter of L-O-G (PDF)-, 21 I&N Dec. 413 (BIA 1996). See Matter of Anderson (PDF), 16 I&N Dec. 596 (BIA 1978).
[^ 3] See Matter of Ngai (PDF), 19 I&N Dec. 245 (BIA 1984) (“Common results of the bar, such as separation, financial difficulties, etc. in themselves are insufficient to warrant approval of an application unless combined with much more extreme impacts").
[^ 6] The characteristics for which a person is ostracized or stigmatized may be actual or perceived (that is, the person may actually have that characteristic, or someone may perceive the person as having that characteristic).
[^ 7] The officer should consider any submitted government or nongovernmental reports on country conditions specified in the hardship claim. In the absence of any evidence submitted on country conditions, the officer may refer to DOS information on country conditions, such as DOS Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and the most recent DOS Travel Warnings, to corroborate the claim.
[^ 8] For more information on TPS, see the USCIS website.
[^ 9] See 5 U.S.C. 5928. See Department of State Danger Pay Regulations, available at Standardized Regulations (DSSR).
[^ 10] See Section D, Examples of Factors that Might Support Finding of Extreme Hardship [9 USCIS-PM B.5(D)].
[^ 12] See, for example, Division F, Title VI of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-8 (PDF), 123 Stat. 524, 807 (March 11, 2009). See Section 1244 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. L. 110-181 (PDF), 122 Stat. 3, 396 (January 28, 2008). See Section 1059 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. 109-163 (PDF), 119 Stat. 3136, 3443 (January 6, 2006), as amended by Pub. L. 110-36 (PDF), 121 Stat. 227 (June 15, 2007).
[^ 13] Although it is unlikely that a qualifying relative would have been granted withholding of removal under INA 241(b)(3) or withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), if a qualifying relative was previously granted such a form of relief, this would often weigh heavily in support of a finding of extreme hardship to that qualifying relative, similar to situations involving qualifying relatives described in this particularly significant factor.
[^ 14] Federal agency programs focusing on individuals with disabilities generally rely on definitions found in their authorizing legislation. These definitions may be unique to an agency’s program.
[^ 15] See 10 U.S.C. 101. The term “armed forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
[^ 17] The term “child” includes those related to the applicant by birth, adoption, marriage, legal custody, or guardianship.
[^ 18] In this scenario, the children are assumed to be under age 21. See INA 101(b)(1) and INA 101(c)(1).
[^ 19] These scenarios are not exhaustive. For example, even when a qualifying relative is not the primary caretaker or breadwinner. Nonetheless, the loss of the applicant’s contribution to caretaking or support may have consequences that rise to the level of extreme hardship to the qualifying relative based on the totality of the circumstances.
[^ 20] USCIS applies a similar principle when assessing whether there is a bona fide relationship between a father and his child born out of wedlock. See INA 101(b)(1)(D) and 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(iii).
[^ 21] None of these examples involves a waiver authority where the child is a qualifying relative under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). For more on qualifying relatives, see Chapter 4, Qualifying Relative [9 USCIS-PM B.4].
[^ 22] If the entire country is the subject of a travel warning that affirmatively recommends against travel or residence, the particularly significant factor will exist and would often weigh heavily in support of a finding of extreme hardship. For more on travel warnings, see Section E, Particularly Significant Factors, Subsection 4, DOS Travel Warnings [9 USCIS-PM B.5(E)(4)].
[^ 23] For more on substantial displacement of care, see Section E, Particularly Significant Factors, Subsection 5, Substantial Displacement of Care of Applicant’s Children [9 USCIS-PM B.5(E)(5)].