Interim Decision #1574

Interim Decision #1574

MaxTea or BIn Section 212(14 Proce dings

A-6230838

Decided by Associate Commissioner Aprn 13, 1968

(1) "Extreme hardship" within the meaning of section 212(h), Imiiigration

and Nationality Act, as amended, is established where applicant, unable to

obtain employment abroad, for assistance has had to rely upon his 'United

States citizen wife who is employed and who, in an effort to pay their debts

of several thousand dollars resulting from his business failure about the

time of departure, has practically impoverished herself; as a result of such

strain her health has been impaired; liquidation of the debts is dependent

upon his regular employment, and such has been offered if his admission is

authorised.

(2) Notwithstanding a long period of marital discord prior to 1981, apparently

of own making, and a pattern of irresponsible conduct between 1250 and

1980 which resulted in his 2 convictions for ,petty criminal offenses, since

applicant has no criminal record after 1960; his present marriage appears

stable; there is no evidence the multiple debts were incurred by wrongdoing nor has there hem any effort to avoid their payment; he has reflected a responsible attitude in departing voluntarily in an effort to correct

his immigration status, knowing the Service had been unable to effect his

deportation; and there is no indication of fraud or misrepresentation in

connection with his subsequent entries as a nonimmigrant, which were made

at a time of great stress on the:part of his wife, it is concluded his case

merits the favorable e.xercise- of the Attorney General's discretion and

his applications for a waiver of the grounds of excludability pursuant to

section 212(h) of the Act, as amended, and for permission to reapply are

granted.

This case is before this office by certification pursuant to 8 CFB

1034'for review of the Southeast Regional Commissioner's decision

of January 175 1966 denying the applicant's motion to reconsider

that officer's decision of May 28, 1965 denying the applicant the

waiver set out in_the caption hereof, as a matter of discretion.

The applicant is a 41-year old married male, citizen of Jordan,

who was born in Jerusalem, Palestine. He was last reported as

being domiciled in Jerusalem-Jordan and temporarily residing in

Montreal, Canada. The more serious ground for his excludability

560

Interim Decision #1574

from the United States arises under section 212(a) (9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for two convictions of crimes

involving moral turpitude, to wit:

(1) On April 7, 1951, in the Superior Court of Alameda County. California on

a charge of issuing checks without sufficient funds for which he was sentenced

to four years probation; and

(2) On May 22, 1259, in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, California on a charge of issuing checks without sufficient funds for which he was

sentenced to six months' imprisonment plus a period of probation. (In connection with the latter, there is an outstanding bench warrant issued in 1960,

in absentia, for an alleged violation of the terms of his probation.)'

An additional ground. of excludability exists under section 212(a)

(17) of the Act, as an alien who has been arrested and deported,

consent to reapply for admission not having been granted. An

application has also been made for such consent.

Although never admitted to the United States for permanent

residence, the applicant resided continuously in this country for

more than 17 years between 1946 to 1968. In addition, he entered

as a temporary visitor on three occasions in 1964. Full details of

his immigration status and activity while here are set forth in a

decision of the Board of Immigration. Appeals, dated September 6,

1951; a decision of the District Director, Miami, dated April 30,

1965 and the Southeast Regional Commissioner's decision of May 28,

1965. The factual matters contained therein are incorporated by

reference and will only be summarized here. •

The applicant first entered the United- States in 1946 as a student.

An order of deportation was entered by the Board, on September 6,

1951, for failure to maintain his status. A warrant for his deportation was thereafter issued but could not be executed because of

inability to obtain documents for his entry into any other country.

He self-executed his deportation by his voluntary departure foreign

on November 18, 1963.

From the time of his 1946 entry until late 1960, he resided principally in California. During that period he entered into three

marriages, of which three United. Stites citizen children were born.

All of these marriages terminated in divorce and the children reside

in California with their respective mothers. There are conflicting

claims as to the extent of support contributed by the applicant for

the care of these children, following the termination of the marriages. However, , it is clear- that any assistance rendered was

sporadic. Notwithstanding this, it appears from the contents of

letters to him from his children that they still esteem him.

During the period between 1950 and 1900 the applicant also

followed. a pattern of issuing checks for small sums on overdrawn

561

Interim Decision .#1674

accbunts. • It is not clearly shown 'whether most of these were

eventually paid up. In any event, this conduct only resulted in the

two convictions previously referred to Irrespective If -the, 'latter,

the. applicant's conduct clearly showed a. complete lack of a sense

of responsibility and disregard fox the law, and be so concedes.

Late in 1960 he moved to New York City where he met his 'present

wife, - now a naturalized citizen, whom he married in 1961. ' They

resided together until his voluntary departure, for the stated purpose of adjusting his immigration status and return to the United

States, on November 18, 1963. About the time of his departure

an import and export firm that he .had established failed. From

at 'least the time of this marriage until the failure of the firm he

had maintained established credit. In addition, during all of the

period of-his New York residence, he had no arrest record. Following the failure of his firm he and his wife became the subjects of

multiple civil suits for debts previously incurred. These debts totaled several thousand dollars. From the evidence, it appears that

due to his unsettled immigration status as well as economic factors

in the various countries in which he has resided. since his departure

he has been unable,to obtain employment sufficient to maintain himself and has had to rely mainly on 'assistance from his wife. In

fact, a United States Government- officer who appeared personally

at this office in his behalf stated that while the applicant was in

Santiago, Chile ,(where he lived a major portion of the time following his 1963 departure) the opportunities for employment were

so few as to barely provide "cigarette money" for the applicant.

lie further stated that the applicant always paid his debts there.

In the interim his spouse, who is employed, has practically impoverished herself in her effort to pay of the debts either jointly

or severally incurred. She has submitted proof that some of these

debts have now been paid. in full and others are being liquidated

to the extent that her limited means will allow. However, it appears

that any substantial inroad is dependent upon her husband being

able to obtain regular employment (In, this regard, he has been

offered such employment here if his entry is authorized.) The record

also contains medical evidence that his wife's health has been im-

paired by the strain which she is undergoing. - On the basis of the record. it is concluded that the applicant's

exclusion has resulted in extreme hardship to his United States

• citizen spouse, and will continue to d.o.so. It is further found. that

his admission to this country- would not be contrary-to the national

welfare, -safety or security of the United States.

The sole remaining question. is whether the applicant merits ex562

•

Interim Decision #15T4

eroise of the Attorney General's discretion to consent to his applying

for a visa arid for admission to the United States. The Southeast

Regional Commissioner has ruled that he does not and is of the

opinion that the applicant's conduct and behavior of the more recent

years has not been persuasive of any reformation on the applicant's

part. The basis for this conclusion is fully set out in the decision

of May 28, 1965 and need not be repeated here.

As a prefatory comment to the weighing of whether discretion

should be favorably exercised, it must be borne in mind that,

• although a successful applicant under section 212(h) of the Act

naturally gains a benefit, the basic purpose in granting • a waiver

is to render relief to a citizen or lawful resident alien who is in

extreme need thereof, unless to do so would be contrary to the good

of the public in general. We have already found that the requisite

harticbrp exists and that the applicant's admission would not be

contrary to the public interest.

It is recognized that for a long period of years prior to 1961, the

applicant's life was marked by marital discord, apparently of his

own making, and a pattern of irresponsible conduct which eventually

resulted in two convictions for petty criminal offenses. However,

he has had no criminal record since 1960 and his present marriage,

despite his unsuccessful previous ones, appears stable. The latter is

evidenced by the persistence displayed -by his wife in her efforts to

enable him to rejoin her here as well as her many trips abroad to

be with him.

The Regional Commissioner has drawn an adverse inference as

to the applicant's reformation from the fact that the applicant (and

his wife) became the subject of multiple civil suits, late in 1963 and

in 1964 for debts previously incurred. It is not believed that such

an inference is warranted by the record. It is asserted by the applicant and his wife that these debt actions stemmed from his business

failure. There is no evidence of wrong-doing in incurring them.

It is also noted that no effort has been made to avoid their payment

through the medium of bankruptcy proceedings or otherwise..

We draw a favorable inference as to a more responsible attitude

on the part of the applicant from his voluntary departure in an

effort to correct his immigration status, although he knew that the

Service had been unable to effect his deportation.

The only substantial adverse information of record, following his

1963 departure, is the fact that, although excludable, he made three

entries to this country in 1964, as a documented non-immigrant, and

a statement from the American Consul in Santiago, Chile (with

whom he had only official contact) expressing strong doubt as to his

563

Interim Decision #1574

integrity and good reputation in the community. With regard to the

former, the record reflects that these entries were made during a

period of great stress on the part of his wife and there is nothing

to indicate that fraud or misrepresentation -was involved in the obtaining of entry documents. As to the Consul's statement, opposed

thereto is a letter from another United States Government official

attesting to his personal acquaintanceship with the applicant in San- tiago and his good character. In addition, there has been received,

in connection with this review, a letter from another United States

-Government officer who also knew the applicant personally, which

is entirely favorable to him. In each instance, the writers were

aware of his prior difficulties. The record also contains statements

from other responsible persons, who knew the applicant in New

York City, which reflect favorably on his present character.

The applicant's-earlier irresponsibility and misconduct cannot be,

and are not, condoned. However, on the basis of the compassionate

factors and present record it is concluded that, in the exercise of the

Attorney General's discretion, the applications should be granted.

ORDER: It is ordered that the application of 1 1-11—E—, also

known as F—B—, for permission to reapply for admission to the

United States after deportation be and is hereby granted.

It is further ordered that the application for waiver of excludability under section 212(a) (9) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act, be and is hereby granted pursuant to the authority contained in

section 212(h) of the Act, PROVIDED that the waiver shall apply

only to the grounds for exclusion describe& herein.

5(i4