PILCH
21 I. & N. Dec. 627 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The cumulative effect of economic detriment, loss of a business, cultural readjustment, and separation from family ties in the United States is generally insufficient to establish 'extreme hardship' for suspension of deportation. The hardship must be over and above the normal economic and social disruptions inherent in the deportation process, even when considering the impact on U.S. citizen children.
Facts:
- Stanislaw and Sofia Pilch, husband and wife, are natives and citizens of Poland.
- Stanislaw Pilch entered the United States in January 1986 as a visitor for pleasure and was authorized to remain for six months.
- Sofia Pilch entered the United States in April 1987, also as a visitor for pleasure authorized to stay for six months; both overstayed their visas.
- While in the U.S., Stanislaw Pilch became a partner in a construction company that employed 13 people.
- The Pilchs purchased a home, owned a car, and had three children who are U.S. citizens.
- The U.S. citizen children were 6, 5, and 4 years old at the time of the hearing and spoke both English and Polish.
- The Pilchs have siblings who are lawful permanent residents in the U.S., but they also have significant family, including another son, parents, and siblings, residing in Poland.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 21, 1993, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated deportation proceedings against Stanislaw and Sofia Pilch by serving them with an Order to Show Cause.
- In proceedings before an Immigration Judge, the Pilchs conceded deportability.
- The Pilchs applied for suspension of deportation, claiming their removal would cause extreme hardship to themselves and their U.S. citizen children.
- On January 10, 1995, the Immigration Judge issued a decision finding the Pilchs deportable, denying their application for suspension of deportation, and granting them voluntary departure.
- The Pilchs (respondents) then appealed the Immigration Judge's denial of suspension of deportation to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the combination of economic loss, separation from family and community ties in the U.S., and the difficulties of readjustment for parents and their young U.S. citizen children constitute 'extreme hardship' under section 244(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Board Member Mathon
No. The difficulties the respondents and their children would face upon deportation do not rise to the level of 'extreme hardship' because they represent the normal consequences of deportation rather than a unique or exceptional level of suffering. The court reasoned that hardship to the parents was primarily economic, and economic detriment alone, including the loss of a business or a higher standard of living, is not extreme hardship. Stanislaw Pilch is young, healthy, and skilled, possessing characteristics that should help him find work in Poland. Regarding the U.S. citizen children, the court held that the birth of a citizen child does not grant a favored status to an undocumented parent. The difficulties the children would face—adjusting to a new culture and potentially reduced educational opportunities—are not materially different from those faced by other children who relocate with their parents, especially at a young age. Since the children are young, bilingual, healthy, and have a family support system in Poland, their hardship was not deemed extreme.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a narrow interpretation of the 'extreme hardship' standard, establishing a high bar for applicants seeking suspension of deportation. By concluding that the cumulative impact of losing a business, a home, community ties, and uprooting U.S. citizen children did not constitute extreme hardship, the Board signaled that only truly exceptional and unusual circumstances would suffice. The ruling clarifies that the hardships must be qualitatively different from the 'normal' social and economic disruptions of deportation. This precedent significantly narrows the path to relief for many undocumented immigrants who have established deep roots in the U.S., guiding lower courts to dismiss claims based on factors common to many deportation cases.
