What are the facts, what is the issue, the rule, and what would be the conclusion.

) U.Ss. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the g and .Immigration Administrative Appeals Office &/ Services MATTER OF Y-F- DATE: DEC. 22, 2017 APPEAL OF SPOKANE. WASHINGTON FIELD OFFICE DECISION APPLICATION: FORM 1-601. APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY The Applicant. a native and citizen of China. has applied to adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). A foreign national seeking to be admitted to the United States as an immigrant or to become an LPR must be \"admissible or receive a waiver of inadmissibility. The Applicant has been found inadmissible for having sought an immigration benefit through fraud or misrepresentation and seeks a waiver of this inadmissibility. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 212(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver if refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative or qualifying relatives. The Director of the Spokane, Washington Field Office denied the application. concluding that the Applicant was inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). for having claimed to have no family in the United States when applying for a student visa. The Director further found that the Applicant had not established that the denial of the waiver application would result in extreme hardship for her U.S. citizen spouse. her qualifying relative in this matter. On appeal. the Applicant asserts that she is not inadmissible to the United States as her misrepresentation was not material to the immigration benefit she was seeking. She further contends that the deficiencies in the Director's request for evidence (RFE) predetermined the denial of the waiver application. Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. I. LAW Any foreign national who. by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa. other documentation. or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under the Act is inadmissible. Section 212(a)(6)(C)(1) of the Act. There is a discretionary waiver of this inadmissibility if refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to the U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent of the foreign national. and decades of case law have contributed to its meaning. The definition of extreme hardship is not . . . fixed and inflexible. and the elements to establish extreme hardship are dependent upon the facts and circumstances of Matter of Y-F- each case.\" Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez. 22 1&N Dec. 560, 565 (BIA 1999) (citation omitted). Extreme hardship exists \"only in cases of great actual and prospective injury.\" Malter of Neai. 19 I&N Dec. 245, 246-47 (BIA 1984). An applicant must demonstrate that claimed hardship is realistic and foreseeable. /d.: see also Matter of Shaughnessy, 12 1&N Dec. 810. 813 (BIA 1968) (finding that the respondent had not demonstrated extreme hardship where there was \"no showing of either present hardship or any hardship . . . in the foreseeable future to the respondent's parents by reason of their alleged physical defects). The common consequences of removal or refusal of admission. which include \"economic detriment . . . [,] loss of current employment. the inability to maintain one's standard of living or to pursue a chosen profession. separation from a family member. [and] cultural readjustment.\" are insufficient alone to constitute extreme hardship. Matter of Pilch. 21 I&N Dec. 627 (BIA 1996) (citations omitted): but see Marier of Kao and Lin, 23 1&N Dec. 45. 51 (BIA 2001) (distinguishing Matter of Pilch on the basis of variations in the length of residence in the United States and the ability to speak the language of the country to which the qualifying relatives would relocate). Nevertheless, all \"[r]elevant factors. though not extreme in themselves. must be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists.\" Matter of lge. 20 [&N Dec. 880, 882 (BIA 1994) (citations omitted). Hardship to the Applicant or others can be considered only insofar as it results in hardship to a qualifying relative. Matter of Gonzalez Recinas. 23 1&N Dec. 467. 471 (BIA 2002). If the foreign national demonstrates the existence of the required hardship, he or she must then show that USCIS should favorably exercise its discretion and grant the waiver. Section 212(i) of the Act. When exercising our discretion, we \"balance the adverse tactors evidencing a [forcign nationals] undesirability as a permanent resident with the social and humane considerations presented on the [foreign national's] behalf to determine whether the grant of relief in the exercise of discretion appears to be in the best interests of the country.\" Muatter of Mendez-Moralez. 21 [&N Dec. 296. 300 (BIA 1996)(citations omitted). II. ANALYSIS A. Inadmissibility The record reflects that at the time she applied for a student visa to come to the United States. the Applicant indicated in her nonimmigrant visa application and to the consular officer who interviewed her that her mother was residing in China. when. in fact. she had applicd for asylum in the United States. The record contains a declaration from the Applicant in which she indicates that an \"agent\" helping her apply for her student visa advised her not to reveal her mother's location and prepared the visa application with false information regarding her mother's location and employment. At the time of her interview, the Applicant testified that her mother was not in the United States and that she had completed her visa application herself. On appeal, the Applicant argues that her misrepresentation regarding her mother should not bar her admission to the United States under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. She maintains that the Director's determination of inadmissibility is based on a finding that she concealed immigrant intent t2 Matter of Y-F- when she sought admission to the United States as a foreign student. She asserts that her subsequent completion of four years of study and two years of work as a nonimmigrant in an H-1B specialty occupation is proof that she did not come to the United States with immigrant intent. She further argues that, pursuant to Matter of Cavazos, 17 1&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1980). foreign nationals who marry U.S. citizens may have \"pre-conceived intent\" and do not require a waiver to adjust status. The Applicant. however. has misunderstood the basis on which the Director found her inadmissible to the United States. A review of the Director's decision finds that she did not conclude that the Applicant's misrepresentation concealed an immigrant intent. but only that it had shut off a line of consular inquiry into whether she was eligible for the nonimmigrant benefit she was seeking. Pursuant to Matter of D-R-. 27 1&N Dec. 105 (BIA 2017). a misrepresentation is material under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act when it tends to shut off a line of inquiry that is relevant to the foreign national's admissibility and that would predictably have disclosed other facts relevant to her eligibility for a visa. other documentation, or admission to the United States. Here, the Applicant concealed that her mother was living in the United States at the time she applied for a student visa. a fact that would have had a direct bearing on the consular officer's determination as to whether she was eligible for a nonimmigrant visa. As a result, her misrepresentation cut olf a line of inquiry relevant to her eligibility for the benefit she was secking, one which might well have led the consular officer who interviewed her to refuse her visa request under section 214(b) of the Act. 8 U.S.C. 1184(b), as an intending immigrant. Accordingly, the Applicant's concealment of her mother's presence in the United States must be considered a material misrepresentation and we will affirm the Director's finding of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. B. Waiver Eligibility Having found the Applicant to be inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. the remaining issues before us are whether the record demonstrates that the Applicant's spouse will experience extreme hardship if the waiver application is denied and. if so. whether the Applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion. On appeal, the Applicant indicates that she will submit a brief within 30 days. However. as of this date, no additional evidence in support of the waiver application is found in the record. Therefore. the record is considered complete and we will proceed with an analysis of the Applicant's claim that her U.S. citizen spouse will suffer extreme hardship if the waiver application is denied. 1. RFE issuance At the outset. we note the Applicant's assertion that the deficiencies in the RFE issued by the Director prevented her from establishing her eligibility for a waiver under section 212(i) of the Act. She specifically asserts that the Director violated 8 C.F.R. 102.3(a)(16) by failing to provide the Matter of Y-F- \"extensive notification it requires." ensuring that her waiver application would not be approved. Further, the Applicant asserts that the RFE sought evidence only of the hardship created by separation when, pursuant to the USCIS policy manual. an extreme hardship claim may also be based on relocation. The Applicant's assertions regarding the deficiencies of the RFE are not. however, persuasive. Contrary to the Applicant's claim, the pertinent USCIS regulation does not specity the content to be included in an RFE. Moreover, it does not require the issuance of an RFE where, as here. the evidence submitted with a benefit request does not establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)(i1). Further, the Applicant's claim that the Director's RFE was limited to seeking only those hardships resulting from separation is not borne out by a reading of the notice. Instcad. we find the factors listed by the RFE as being considered in USCIS extreme hardship determinations to clearly include those resulting from relocation. e.g.. the qualifying relative's access to healthcare in the country of relocation; his or her employability in the country of relocation; his or her separation from family residing in the United States: and any cultural. linguistic or ethnic obstacles that he or she will face upon relocation. We note that these are the same hardship factors listed in the attachment to the RFE that the Applicant submits on appeal as an example of a properly issued evidence request. However, even it we found the Director to have somehow erred in the issuance of the RFE in this matter. we find the appropriate remedy for such error would be the current appeal process. which has provided the Applicant with the opportunity to supplement the record with additional evidence of hardship. We note that although stating on her appeal form that she would supplement the record. no additional evidence has been submitted since the filing of the appeal in June 2017. 2. Hardship claims On appeal. the Applicant contends that her spouse will experience extreme hardship if the waiver application is denied and he returns with her to China as he is half Japanese and does not speak or read Chinese. This claim is not. however. sufficient to establish that the Applicant's spouse will face extreme hardship upon relocation. Although the Applicant asserts that her spouse will experience hardship in China because he is half Japanese and is not literate in the Chinese language, she does not identify what hardships he will experience as a result of his ethnicity and his inability to speak and read Chinese, e.g., the impact that not knowing the Chinese language will have on his ability to obtain employment. Moreover, the record contains no country conditions materials on China in support of the Applicant's assertion, which. by itself. is not sufficient to establish the hardship she claims. Accordingly. the record does I i B2 5 : S . . It appears that the Applicant may be referring to 8 C.F.R. 103.2(a)(16). However. this regulation does not address the issuance of RFEs. Instead, it allows an applicant or petitioner to inspect the record of his or her immigration proceedings, with certain exceptions. As discussed above, the regulation that addresses the issuance of RFFEs is 8 C.I.R. 103.2(b)(8). S """"" Matter of Y-F- not demonstrate that the Applicant's spouse will experience extreme hardship it the waiver application is denied and he relocates to China with the Applicant. To establish that her spouse will experience extreme hardship if the waiver application is denied and he remains in the United States. the Applicant has submitted statements from her spouse in which he asserts that he is both emotionally and financially dependent on her. She has also provided documentation to support her spouse's claim of financial hardship. The submitted evidence does not, however. establish that the Applicant's spouse will experience extreme hardship if the Applicant is required to return to China and he remains in the United States. In his statements, the Applicant's spouse asserts that he and the Applicant support one another, each carning $32.000-$38.000 annually, income which. he states, provides them with a fairly comfortable life together. He contends, however, that without the Applicant he will experience great financial hardship, and will barely be able to pay for rent, utilities, food and have a \"good quality of life.\" He further maintains that without the Applicant, he will not be able to save to buy a home and start a tamily, and will be \"blindsided by emergencies or accidents. To establish her spouse's financial circurnstances in her absence. the Applicant has submitted copies of their 2016 auto insurance premium; a copy of one of her spouse's 2016 bi-weekly carnings statements: his payroll records from 2015 and 2016; his 2015 Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, and tax return; a cable bill: an electric bill; and their 2016 rental agreement. The Applicant's spouse also asserts that he needs the Applicant is his life, that he cannot live emotionally without her, and that he will never recover emotionally if they are separated. He states that before he met the Applicant he was depressed and unmotivated. but that the Applicant makes him happy. He also contends that if he and the Applicant are separated. having children and raising their children apart will result in great hardship. In a separate statement, the Applicant's mother-in-law indicates that her son and the Applicant are caring and supportive of each other, and are constant companions. While we acknowledge the emotional and financial hardships that the Applicant's spouse claims will result if the Applicant returns to China and he remains in the United States, we do not find them. whether considered individually or in the aggregate, to establish that he will experience extreme hardship upon separation from the Applicant. Although the record indicates that the loss of the Applicant's income will negatively affect his financial circumstances. including requiring him to find less expensive housing, we also note that his annual income of $31,200, as established by the record, is more than two and one-half times the federal poverty level guideline for a single individual. Therefore, in the absence of evidence of debts or other tinancial obligations that exceed his income, we do not find the record to demonstrate that the Applicant's spouse will experience significant financial hardship as a result of the Applicant's departure from the United States. Neither do we find it to provide evidence that would allow us to determine the extent or likely impacts of the emotional hardship the Applicant's spouse contends he will experience in the Applicant's absence. Matrter of Y-F- Accordingly, the Applicant has not established that her spouse will experience extreme hardship if the waiver application is denied and he remains in the United States without her. In that the record does not demonstrate that the denial of the waiver application will result in extreme hardship for a qualifying relative. we find no purpose is to be served by a consideration of whether the Applicant merits the approval of a waiver in the exercise of discretion. 1. CONCLUSION The Applicant's admission to the United States is barred by section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) ot the Act. For the reasons discussed. the record does not establish that the denial of the waiver application will result in extreme hardship for her U.S. citizen spouse. Accordingly, the Applicant's waiver application remains denied. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. Cite as Maner of Y-F-. ID# 795379 (AAO Dec. 22.2017)