On July 18, 2019, Liu & Associates, PLLC received approval for two I-601 Waivers for two clients (husband – Client A and wife –Client B) that were, at one point, members of the communist party prior to coming to the United States. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved both waivers without RFEs.
Client A had an I-485 adjustment of status pending on an approved I-140 petition. However, pursuant to INA §212(a)(3)(D), USCIS found both Client A and B to be ineligible to adjust status because they had been members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) within five years of submitting the Form I-485 applications. Liu & Associates, PLLC (L&A) argued that Client A and B qualified for several exceptions due to the fact that the memberships were involuntary and non-meaningful, and that there was sufficient hardship to a qualifying relative, a United States citizen (USC) daughter, to merit approval of Form I-601 waiver request for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity. Specifically, L&A requested that USCIS balance the adverse factors evidencing an alien’s undesirability as a permanent resident with the social and humane considerations presented on the alien’s behalf to determine whether the grant of relief in the exercise of discretion appears to be in the best interests of the country.
The memberships were involuntary allowing them to qualify for an exception because each individual's membership was necessary “for purposes of obtaining employment…or other essentials of living.” Both clients attest to joining at the risk of losing their respective jobs because being a member was held in high esteem by their employer and fellow co-workers. Furthermore, once they left China, both clients allowed their memberships to lapse because the fear of losing employment was no longer present. Moreover, both clients affirmed that their memberships in the CCP were nominal, as they did not actively participate in any CCP activies outside of attending mandatory meetings or paying dues.
The clients’ memberships were non-meaningful, rendering them admissible because they were devoid of any political implications. Additionally, as mentioned above, the memberships were merely for job opportunities and involved limited participation, further proving the memberships were non-meaningful.
Finally, L&A argued that the clients had a USC daughter which qualifies them for an exception for the maintenance of family unity. In an effort for family unity, the Attorney General has discretion to grant the waiver for “humanitarian purposes” if it is not otherwise contrary to public interest. The USC daughter relies on both parents for care and support. Client A and B have proven to be essential to their daughter's upbringing, both financially and emotionally. The family is active in the community, known for their good moral character and close familial ties, as attested to in letters from friends and other members of the community. The letters also detailed the challenges the family would face if they were separated, or alternatively, forced to return to China. Overall, the United States would benefit from the services of Client A in his work in the healthcare industry, having helped numerous patients, again attested to in letters from patients.
Based on the substantive evidence, L&A successfully argued that Clients A and B fell under at least one of the exceptions for membership in a CCP under INA 212(a)(3)(D)(ii), non-meaningful association under 9 FAM 302.5-6(B)(6), and the exception for close family members under INA 212(a)(3)(D)(iv). As a result, both clients will be able to remain in the United States with their children and continue contributing to their local communities and to the United States.