## Facts

- Luis Felipe Cervantes-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in 1989.
- To work, he obtained and used a fraudulent U.S. birth certificate to secure a Social Security number.
- He was arrested when he attempted to use the false documents to obtain a U.S. passport and was convicted of possessing a falsified birth certificate with intent to defraud the government.
- The government placed him in deportation proceedings; he admitted the allegations and was found deportable.
- During proceedings, he married a woman from Mexico who later became a U.S. citizen; they lived in the United States with her family, while most of his close family remained in Mexico.
- He sought adjustment of status based on his U.S.-citizen spouse’s approved immediate-relative visa petition, along with a waiver under INA § 212(i) for inadmissibility based on fraud or misrepresentation.
- He claimed his removal would cause extreme hardship to his U.S.-citizen spouse due to financial constraints and anticipated difficulty for her finding work in Mexico and visiting family in the United States if she relocated.

## Issues

1. Whether the amended requirements of INA § 212(i) apply to cases pending when the amendment took effect.
2. What factors are relevant to determining “extreme hardship” to a qualifying relative under INA § 212(i).
3. Whether the fraud or misrepresentation that created inadmissibility may be considered as an adverse factor when deciding a § 212(i) waiver as a matter of discretion.

## Decision

- The BIA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the IJ’s denial of the § 212(i) waiver and adjustment of status.
- The BIA held the amended version of INA § 212(i) applies to pending cases.
- The BIA identified a non-exhaustive set of factors relevant to evaluating “extreme hardship” under § 212(i).
- The BIA held the underlying fraud or misrepresentation may be weighed as an adverse factor in the discretionary determination on a § 212(i) waiver.
- On the record, the BIA found no showing of extreme hardship to the U.S.-citizen spouse and, independently, found relief unwarranted in discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Amended eligibility requirements for discretionary relief under INA § 212(i) apply to cases pending at the time the amendment took effect.
- “Extreme hardship” under INA § 212(i) is fact-dependent and not defined by a fixed formula.
- Relevant (non-exclusive) extreme-hardship considerations include: (1) qualifying-relative family ties in the United States, (2) qualifying-relative family ties outside the United States, (3) conditions in the country of relocation and the qualifying relative’s ties there, (4) financial impact of departure, and (5) significant health conditions, especially where suitable medical care is unavailable abroad.
- Ordinary consequences of removal, including typical financial and family disruption, generally do not meet the “extreme hardship” standard.
- Even if statutory eligibility is established, a § 212(i) waiver remains discretionary, and the fraud or misrepresentation giving rise to inadmissibility may be treated as an adverse discretionary factor.

## Conclusion

The BIA applied the amended § 212(i) standard to a pending case, articulated a non-exclusive framework for assessing extreme hardship to qualifying relatives, and confirmed that the conduct underlying inadmissibility may weigh against a waiver in discretion, ultimately denying relief for insufficient hardship and unfavorable equities.


Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I. & N. Dec. 560 (B.I.A. 1999)