A finding of extreme hardship permits but never compels a favorable exercise of discretion. If the officer finds the requisite extreme hardship, the officer must then determine whether USCIS should grant the waiver as a matter of discretion based on an assessment of the positive and negative factors relevant to the exercise of discretion. The family relationships to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and a finding of extreme hardship to one or more of those family members are significant positive factors to consider. [1] See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996).

For purposes of exercising discretion, a finding of extreme hardship that is sufficient to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion to grant a waiver of the unlawful presence grounds of inadmissibility may not be sufficient to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion with respect to crime- or fraud-related grounds of inadmissibility. The conduct that triggered the applicant’s inadmissibility, such as a criminal conviction [2] In cases where applicants who have been convicted of violent or dangerous crimes apply for waivers under INA 212(h)(1)(B) [formerly INA 212(h)(2)], discretion generally will not be favorably exercised unless either there are “extraordinary circumstances” (for example those relating to national security or foreign policy) or the applicant demonstrates “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” Depending on the gravity of the offense, even a showing of extraordinary circumstances does not guarantee a favorable exercise of discretion. See 8 CFR 212.7(d). or underlying fraud, [3] See INS v. Yueh-Shaio Yang, 519 U.S. 26, 30-32 (1996). See Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. 560, 568-69 (BIA 1999), aff’d, Cervantes-Gonzales v. INS, 244 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2001). is an important negative factor to consider. The officer should weigh all positive factors against all negative factors. Ultimately, if the positive factors outweigh the negative factors, the officer should approve the waiver; otherwise, the waiver should be denied.

Footnotes


1. [^]

See Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996).

2. [^]

In cases where applicants who have been convicted of violent or dangerous crimes apply for waivers under INA 212(h)(1)(B) [formerly INA 212(h)(2)], discretion generally will not be favorably exercised unless either there are “extraordinary circumstances” (for example those relating to national security or foreign policy) or the applicant demonstrates “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” Depending on the gravity of the offense, even a showing of extraordinary circumstances does not guarantee a favorable exercise of discretion. See 8 CFR 212.7(d).

3. [^]

See INS v. Yueh-Shaio Yang, 519 U.S. 26, 30-32 (1996). See Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. 560, 568-69 (BIA 1999), aff’d, Cervantes-Gonzales v. INS, 244 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2001).