AMIN

13 I. & N. Dec. 209
CourtBoard of Immigration Appeals
DecidedJuly 1, 1969
Docket1959
StatusPublished

This text of 13 I. & N. Dec. 209 (AMIN) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Board of Immigration Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
AMIN, 13 I. & N. Dec. 209 (bia 1969).

Opinion

Interim Decision *1959

MATTER or Alum

In Section 212 (e) Proceedings A-13871376 Decided by Regional Commissioner April 11, 19139 An exchange visitor's application for waiver of the foreign residence re- quirement of section 212(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, based primarily on the claim of exceptional hardship that would result to his two U.S. citizen children because of impair'ment of the moth- er's ability to care for them due to a skin infection, is denied since it has not been established that the mother's condition in . the past has impaired her ability to properly care for her children to the extent that it has caused or may be expected to cause them exceptional hardship: further, should there be a recurrence of the infection, medical treatment is avail- able in the country to which she must depart. ON BEHALF or APPLICAI4121 Howard L. Kushner, Esquire 730 Main Street Niagara Falls, New York 14301

This matter is before the Regional Commissioner on appeal from the denial of the application for waiver of the two-year for- eign residence requirement of section 212 (e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, on the ground that exceptional hardship has not been established. The appellant, a married 31-year-old physician, is a native and citizen of India. He was admitted to the United States on August 12, 1962 as an exchange visitor to participate in an exchange pro- gram at Francis Hospital, Poughkeepsie, New York, where he served a one-year rotating internship. He subsequently engaged in residency training in psychiatry at the Husdon River State Hospital, Poughkeepsie, New York from July 1963 until June 1967. On July 27, 1967, the Department of State advised that there is no basis under the Exchange Visitor Program for grant- big the alien any additional extensions of stay. He is the benefici- ary of an approved third preference visa petition filed on August 17, 1967. The record further reflects that the appellant's wife was admit- 209 Interim Decision #1959 ted to the United States in 3-2 status on May 6, 1963. They had been married in India on June 18, 1962 and have two chil- dren, ages five and one-and-one-half, both born in the United States. The instant waiver request was filed December 26, 1967 under the provisions of section 212 (e) of the Act which states, in pertinent part, as follows : • .. upon the favorable recommendation of the Secretary of State, pursuant to the request of an interested United States Government agency, or of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization after he has determined that departure from the United States would impose exceptional hardship upon the alien's spouse or child (if such spouse or child is a citizen of the United States or a lawfully resident alien), the Attorney General may waive the requirement of such two-year foreign residence abroad in the case of any alien whose admission to the United States is found by the Attorney General to be in the public interest ... In the matter at hand, it has been alleged that compliance with the two-year foreign residence requirement would impose excep- tional hardship on the applicant's two United States citizen chil- dren. It has been claimed that the appellant would be unable to obtain a position as a psychiatrist in India which would provide a salary sufficient to properly support his family; that the children would be subjected there to infectious diseases, poor nutrition, in- adequate health facilities, and a generally lower standard of liv- ing; that the applicant's wife is afflicted with eczematized tinea which affects her ability to perform household duties and care for the children; that treatment for this condition is not readily available in India. In support of the instant application, evidence has been pre- sented that the Government of India has no objection to the ap- plicant's admission for permanent residence; that the children's health would be detrimentally affected by residence in India; that the wife's eczematized tinea of the hands—which is indigenous to India—is resistant to treatment, including superficial radiother- apy, and here return to that country would aggravate her case. At the request of this Service, a more detailed medical report was submitted relative to the wife's condition. Upon review of the medical evidence, the United States Publie Health Service advised that her superficial fungus infection should not contraindicate her return to India; that adequate treatment for this disease should be available in that country. The District Director denied the waiver application November 26, 1968 on the following grounds: The statute provides that a waiver on hardship grounds may be granted only if the exchange visitor has a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or child and compliance with the foreign residence require- ment would impose exceptional hardship upon such spouse or child. Adjust-

210 Interim Decision #1959 went factors will usually be present if the spouse or child proceeds abroad to a country where the customs, language, and mode of living are strange. Similarly, in most cases an exchange alien newly returning abroad to comply with the foreign residence requirement will require a considerable length of time to reestablish himself there and begin earning an income which would enable him to adequately support himself and the members of his family. These factors must then. be considered the usual hardships which might be anticipated by the spouse and children of an exchange visitor who is required to comply with the foreign residence requirement. After very careful consideration, it has been determined that the factors of adjustment and economic hardship which you have set forth constitute the usual hardships which may be anticipated rather than the exceptional hard- ship contemplated by the statute. Furthermore, the medical documentation which you submitted fails to substantiate your claim that your wife will be unable to care for your children in India, Accordingly, your application is denied. On December 17, 1968, counsel submitted a motion to reopen and reconsider this matter. In connection therewith, it has been contended that the applicant's wife suffers from a medical eondi- tion which is more than the usual type of fungus infection inas- much as it does not respond to the usual treatment; that she re- quires X ray therapy in order to alleviate her condition, the -

prolonged use of which may result in serious complications; that the recurring nature of the infection necessitates that she avoid, as much as possible, the environment in which she would be sub- jected to the infection; that if she returns to India and her condi- tion worsens, the prospect of dangerous complications from the resultant treatment is so great, the children would be deprived of their mother's constant care and attention; that it is the trea- ment for the infection, not merely the availability of such treat- ment, which creates exceptional hardship. There has been pre- sented in support of the motion another statement from the wife's physician which reiterates the resistance of her case to treatment with fungicidal drugs, the satisfactory resulti obtained by X-ray therapy, the danger of recurrence of the condition in a subtropical climate, and the complications which could result from repeated X-ray treatments. A statement has also been furnished by another doctor which advises against X-ray therapy more often that every two or three years and then only minimum dosage, provided all other treatment is ineffectual. The District Director dismissed the motion to reopen and re- consider on January 28, 1969, concluding that the medical evi- dence presented therewith is essentially the same as the informa- tion previously evaluated by the United States Public Health Service.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 I. & N. Dec. 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amin-bia-1969.