NGAI

                                                       Interim Decision #2989




                             MATTER OF NGAI

      al Proceedings for a Waiver of Grounds of Excludability

                                   A-23118290

                 Decided by Commissioner July 31, 1.984

   Approval of an application for a waiver of a bar to admission
pursuant to section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
8 U.S.C_ § 1182(h) (1982), is dependent in part upon a showing of extreme hardship, and thus only in cases of great actual or prospective injury to a qualifying party will the bar be removed.
ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: Joe M. Chan
                                  950 Grant Avenue #201
                                  San Francisco, California 94108

  The application was denied by the district director, Hong Kong,
which decision has been appealed.
  The applicant is a Chinese national born in 1927. She is an applicant for an immigrant visa based on an approved visa petition filed
by her husband, a permanent resident of the United States. She
has been found to be excludable from the United States pursuant
to section 212(a)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

(a)(9) (1982), which provides, in part, for the exclusion
of aliens who have been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. The applicant was found so excludable as a result of a 1974
conviction in Hong Kong of obtaining property by deception in that
she was an accomplice to defrauding money from persons by promising to introduce them to United States citizens for the purpose of
arranging marriages and immigration to the United States.
  The applicant filed the instant application, seeking that this permanent bar to her admission be waived as provided in section
212(h) of the Act, which provides:
 Any alien, who is excludable from the United States under paragraphs (9), (10), or
 (12) of this section, who (A) is the spouse or child, including a minor unmarried
 adopted_ child. of a United States citizen, or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence . . . shall, if otherwise admissible, be issued a visa and admit.
 ted to the United States for permanent residence (1) if it shall be established to
 the satisfaction of the Attorney General that (A) the alien's exclusion would
 result in extreme hardship to the United States citizen or lawfully resident
Interim Decision # 2989

  spouse, parent, or son or daughter of such alien, and (B) the admission to the
  United States of such alien would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety
  or security of the United States; and (2) if the Attorney General, in his discretion,
  and pursuant to such terms, conditions, and procedures as he may by regulations
  prescribe, has consented to the alien's applying or reapplying for a visa and for
  admission to the United States.
   In this application she cited the fact that her husband and three
 daughters were permanent residents in the United States while she
 has one son remaining with her. She asserted that the bar to her
 admission imposed a hardship on her husband due to the fact of
their imposed separation and the fmancial strain of his having to
maintain two households.
   The district director denied this application, concluding that
there was in fact no hardship of any kind as a result of the bar. He
found the applicant to be self-supporting in Hong Kong rather than
financially supported by her husband. He further found, based on
that husband's statement, that husband and wife had not seen each
other in over 28 years as a result of their own voluntary decision,
and that the husband had no plans to reunite with his wife if she
were not admitted to the United States. He thus concluded that the
existence of a marriage on paper for this extended period of time
was insufficient to establish a basis for the approval of this waiver.
   On appeal, the applicant contests this decision, asserting that her
continued exclusion will result in extreme hardship to her husband
in the United States in that he is 60 years old and has serious
health problems and that he suffers from hypertension and sinus
tachycardia. She claims that her son, now age 35, who lives with
her, will soon immigrate to the United States based on a petition
filed by the applicant's husband. She asserts that her son is mentally retarded and unable to care for himself, which will exacerbate
her husband's condition. She asserts that her forced absence will
work a hardship on both her husband, who will have to continue to
support two households and will thus be unable to retire, and on
her son, who will be deprived of adequate medical care and attention_
   A waiver of bar to admission that results from section 212(a)(9) of
the Act is dependent first upon a showing that the fact of the bar
imposes an extreme hardship on a qualifying family member. Congress provided this waiver but limited its application. By such li rnitation it is evident that it did not intend that a waiver be granted
merely due to the fact that a qualifying relationship existed. The
key term in the provision is "extreme" and thus only in cases of
great actual or prospective injury to the United States nation will
the bar be removed. Common results of the bar, such as separation,
financial difficulties, etc. in themselves are insufficient to warrant

                                        246
                                             Interim Decision #2989

approval of an application unless combined with much more extreme impacts. Matter of Shaughnessy, 

 (BIA 1968);
Matter of W-, 

 (BIA 1960). The burden of proof in such
a proceeding lies with the applicant, and while an analysis of a
given application includes a review of all claims put forth in light
of the facts and circumstances of a case, such analysis does not
extend to discovery of undisclosed negative impacts.
  In the matter at bar, many of the applicant's statements regarding the causes and extent of any hardship which would result from
her exclusion are refuted by the record. The applicant now claims
that her son, age 86, is severely retarded and unable to care for
himself. However, the record contains a medical report wherein
her son is found to be moderately retarded, able to care for himself,
and able to do simple industrial work. It further notes that he has
been employed in Hong Kong. The applicant's claim that the separation from her husband causes him financial hardship is refuted
by the fact that she is employed in Hong Kong and is in fact self-supporting. The applicant's typification of her husband as a person
With severe medical problems with no one other than his wife to
look to is refulted both by the description of his medical condition
and the fact that he has three adult daughters in the United
States. All of these facts, when combined with a 28-year voluntary
separation, establish that any hardship that will be imposed on
either the applicant's husband or any of her four children, when
taken either individually or collectively, falls far short of extreme.
Accordingly, the decision of the district director is affirmed and the
appeal will be dismissed.
  ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.