The applicant in this case is a native and citizen of Mexico.  She misrepresented her intentions when she entered the United States as a visitor and, as a consequence, was found to be inadmissible pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act.  She married a US citizen and sought a wavier of inadmissibility pursuant to section 212(i).  The Field Office Director (FOD) in Portland, Oregon found that she failed to establish extreme hardship to a qualifying relative and denied her application.  On appeal, counsel for the applicant argued that the FOD failed to consider all of the evidence in the aggregate, particularly in light of the psychological evaluation in the record.  The AAO agreed. 

The AAO has consistently held that relevant factors, though not extreme in themselves, must be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists.  The actual hardship associated with any abstract hardship factor such as family separation, economic disadvantage or cultural readjustment will differ in nature and severity depending on the unique circumstances of each case. The AAO noted, for example, that even though family separation is a common result of inadmissibility, it can still be the most important single hardship factor in considering hardship in the aggregate.

In this case, the applicant’s husband was born in Texas and all of his immediate family members live in the United States, including ten siblings, four children and three grandchildren.  He does not know Mexico well, and fears for his safety there.  While in Ciudad Juarez he witnessed a shootout between members of the cartel and the military. He and his nephew were threatened by men wearing ski masks with automatic weapons in the middle of the day.  They did not go to the police because they were not sure they could trust the police.

The psychological evaluation states that the applicant was the middle of eleven children and that he grew up in a home with a physically and verbally abusive alcoholic father.  The applicant is very close to his siblings as they supported each other while growing up in order to survive.  The applicant also experienced significant discrimination and prejudice during his school years.  When he was 23 years old, he was called home from the army because his mother died, his father left and he had to care for his younger siblings. His first marriage ended when his wife left with their child.  He did not see the child again until he was 12, at which time the child found him and told him the mother was abusive.  The applicant took his son in.  The applicant’s physician prescribed him Prozac to treat depression dating back to his first marriage. He remarried and had twins and the second marriage lasted 28 years.  According to the psychologist, when the applicant met his current wife, he felt there was new meaning in life.  He fears serious depression if she returns to Mexico without him and if he moved to Mexico and lost the closeness and support of his siblings and children. The psychologist diagnosed him with dysthymia, and adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety.  According to the psychologist, if the applicant’s wife is not allowed to remain in the United States, there would be serious psychological consequences and it is highly likely his depression would worsen to the point that he would serious consider suicide.  There was also a letter from the applicant’s sister stating that her brother sometimes suffered from clinical depression, isolated himself and did not get out of bed.

The AAO found that, in light of the applicant’s mental health issues, the effect of separation from his wife goes above and beyond what a typical individual would experience and rises to the level of extreme hardship.

It found further that moving to Mexico to avoid separation would also be an extreme hardship.  The applicant is currently 58 years old, born in the United States.  He does not know much about Mexico and personally witnessed and experienced violence when he was there. The AAO took administrative notice that the US Department of State urges US citizens to defer non-essential travel to parts of Mexico, due to the ongoing violence and security concerns, including Sinaloa, where the applicant and his wife would live.  Considering all of these factors cumulatively, the AAO found that the hardship the applicant would experience if he had to move to Mexico is extreme, going well beyond those hardships ordinarily associated with inadmissibility or exclusion.