Interim Decision #2669

Interim Decision #2669

MATTER OF ANDERSON

In Deportation Proceedings

A-22154419

Decided by Board August 31, 1978

(1) Criteria discussed in the Rouse Judiciary Committee report to H.R. 8713 (94th

Congress) with reference to the extreme hardship requirement of section 244(a)(1) of

the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254(a)(1), are not inconsistent with the

prevailing interpretation of that requirement as articulated by the courts and the

Board.

(2) While political and economic conditions in an alien's humeland are relevant factors In

determining extreme hardship under section 244(a)(1), they do not justify a grant of

relief unless other factors such as advanced age, severe illness, family ties, etc. combine

with economic detriment to make deportation extremely hard on the alien or the citizen

or permanent resident members of hie family.

CHARGE:

Orden Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)j—Nonimmigrant visitor—

remained longer than permitted

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

Howard Rosengarten, Esquire

853 Broadway

New York, New York 10003

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:

George Masterton

Appellate Trial Attorney

BY; Milhollan, Chairman; Appleman, Maguire, and Farb, Board Members

In a decision dated November 4, 1977, an immigration judge found the

respondent deportable as charged, denied his application for suspension

of deportation under section 244(a) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254(a), but granted him the privilege of voluntary

departure in lieu of deportation. The respondent has appealed. The

appeal will be dismissed.

The respondent, a 55-year-old native and citizen of the Dominica-11

Republic, entered the United States on August 3, 1969, as a nonimmi grant visitor. He has conceded deportability as a visitor who has remained here beyond the period authorized. The finding we are asked tc

zeview on appeal concerns the denial of suspension of deportation.

596

Interim Decision #2669

In order to establish eligibility for section 244(a)(1) relief, an alien

must prove that he has been physically present in the United States for

the last seven years, that he has been a person of good moral character

for the same period, and that his deportation will result in extreme

hardship to himself or to his United States citizen or permanent resident

spouse, children, or parents.

The immigration judge appears to have found that the respondent

failed to establish two of the three statutory criteria, continuous physical presence and extreme hardship. The issue of the respondent's good

moral character was not challenged by the Immmigration and Naturalization Service. In view of our conclusions on the hardship issue, we

find it unnecessary to reach the question of continuous physical presence.

In testimony given at the hearing, the respondent contended that the

economy of the Dominican Republic is so severely depressed that he will

find it difficult to support himself and his wife, who is also in the United

States illegally. Medical treatment for her psychological maladjustments could not be afforded, according to the respondent. The immigration judge concluded that the thrust of the respondent's argument was

that he would suffer economic detriment if deported. The judge correctly noted that under the prevailing interpretation of the extreme

hardship requirement, financial hardship in the absence of substantial

additional equities has not been a persuasive factor. See Mutter of Uy,

111. & N. Dec. 159 (BIA 1965); Matter of Sangster, 11 I. & N. Dec. 309

(BIA 1965); Matter of Gibson, Interim Decision 2541 (BIA 1976).

At oral argument, counsel for the respondent directed our attention

to recent comments by the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of

extreme hardship. Counsel was referring to a report by the committee

in the 94th Congress on §4 of H.R. 8713, a bill which provided for

discretionary adjustment of status for certain aliens whose deportation

would result in "unusual hardship". The committee report contains the

following discussion:

With respect to determining hardship under section 4 of this bill the Attorney General

is expected to apply similar criteria to that which is currently utilized in granting

suspension of deportation and consider the following facts and circumstances among

others: age of the subject; family ties in the United States and abroad; length of

residence in the United States; condition of health; conditions in the country to which

the alien is returnable—economic and political; financial status—business and occupation; the possibility of other means of adjustment of status; whether of special assistance

to the United States or community; immigration history; position in the community.

' H.R. 8713 was reported out of Committee to the full House; however, no action was

taken on the measure by the House prior to the adjournment of the 94th Congress. For a

cllscussion of the limited significance of legislative committee statements in the wet" of

administrative discretion, see Matter of Riccio, Interim Decision 2463 (BIA 1976).

597

Interim Decision #2669

In light of these statements, counsel contends that the impoverished

economy of the Dominican Republic should be a dispositive factor in this

suspension application. 2

Conditions in an alien's homeland are relevant in determining hardship, as the. Committee pointed out. It is obvious, however, that laying

critical emphasis on the economic and political situation would mandate

a grant of relief in most cases for it is a demonstrable fact that despite

the beleaguered state of our own economy, the United States enjoys a

standard of living higher than that in most of the other countries of the

world. For this reason, most deported aliens will likely suffer some

degree of financial hardship. Nonetheless, we do not believe that Congress intended to remedy this situation by suspending the deportation

of all those who will be unable to maintain the standard of living at home

which they have managed to achieve in this country. Clearly, it is only

when other factors such as advanced age, severe illness, family ties, etc.

combine with economic detriment to make deportation extremely hard

on the alien or the citizen or permanent resident members of his family

that Congress has authorized suspension of the deportation order.

We do not dispute the respondent's characterization of the Dominican

economy. However, we cannot find a sufficient number of other adverse

factors to conclude that deportation will result in the degree of hardship

that section 244(a)(1) was designed to alleviate. The respondent has

spent most of his eight yearn in the United States as a self-employed

carpenter. Prior to his arrival, he also worked as a carpenter for the

Dominican Government where his ability was apparently highly - regarded. While he has several cousins who live in the United States, his

brothers, sisters, and ten children all live in the Dominican Republic_

Treatmentof his wife's emotional difficulties can surely be obtained at

home, albeit with economic sacrifices. Despite the sympathetic factors

in this case, we are not persuaded that the respondent warrants the

extraordinary relief authorized in section 244(a)(1) of the Act.

The respondent's original voluntary departure time was three

months. That period has expired. In keeping with our decision in Matter

of Chouliaris, Interim Decision 2572 (BIA 1977), we will grant the

respondent thirty days from the date of this order in which to voluntarily depart from the United States.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

FURTHER ORDER: The respondent is permitted to depart frona

the United States voluntarily within 30 days from the date of this order

We are aware of the fact that the respondent has requested that he be sent to

'Venezuela, rather than the Dominican Republic, if deportation becomes necessary. FaX

Une purposea of assessing the grcatcot degree of potential hardship, however, we mill

assume that the respondent's request cannot be honored.

598

Interim Decision #2669

and under such conditions as the District Director deems appropriate;

and in the event of failure so to depart, the respondent shall be deported

as provided in the immigration judge's order.

599