A wai ver o f i nadmi ssi bi l i t y under section 2I 2( a ) ( 9) ( B) ( v) o f the Act is dependent on a s howi ng that the bar to admi ssi on imposes ext r eme hardshi p on a qualifying relative, whi ch includes t he U.S. ci t i zen or l awful l y resi dent spouse or par ent o f the applicant. Hardshi p to the appl i cant or chi l dren can be consi dered onl y insofar as it results in hardshi p to a qualifying relative. Th e appl i cant ' s s pous e is the onl y qual i fyi ng relative in this case. I f ext r eme hardship to a qual i f yi ng relative is established, the appl i cant is statutorily el i gi bl e for a waiver, and USC IS then assesses whet her a
favorabl e exer ci se o f discretion is warranted. See Maller o f Melldez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296, 3 0 I (B IA 1996).
As a qual i fyi ng relative is not required to depart t he United St at es as a cons equence o f an appl i cant ' s inadmissibility, t wo distinct factual scenari os exi st shoul d a wai ver appl i cat i on b e denied: ei t her the qualifying rel at i ve will j o i n the applicant to reside abroad or the qualifying rel at i ve will remai n in the United States. Ascer t ai ni ng the actual course o f action that will be taken is compl i cat ed by the fact that an applicant may easily assert a plan for t he qual i fyi ng relative to rel ocat e abroad o r to remain in t he United St at es dependi ng on which scenario presents the greatest pr ospect i ve hardshi p, even t hough no intention exists to carry out the alleged pl an in reality. Cf Maller o f 1ge, 20 I&N Dec. 880, 885 (BIA 1994) (addressi ng separat i on o f mi nor child from both parents appl yi ng for suspensi on o f deportation). Thus, we interpret the statutory language o f the various waiver provisions in section 212 o f t he Act to require an applicant to est abl i sh ext r eme hardshi p to his or her qualifying relative(s) under both possible scenarios. To endure t he hardship o f separat i on when ext r eme hardshi p could be avoi ded by j oi ni ng the appl i cant abroad, or to endure the hardshi p o f relocation when ext r eme hardshi p could b e avoided by r emai ni ng in the United States, is a malleI' o f choi ce and not t he result o f removal or inadmissibility. As t he Board o f Immi grat i on Appeals stated in Mal l er o f l g e :
[ W] e consi der t he critical issue . . . to be whet her a child would suffer e xt r e me hardshi p i f he accompani ed his parent abroad. If, as in this case, no hardship would ensue, t hen the fact
that the child might face hardship i f left in t he United St at es would b e t he result o f parental
choice, not the pa r e nt ' s deportation. ld. See al so Mal l er o f Pilch, 21 [&N Dec. 627, 632-33 ( BI A 1996) Ext r eme hardship is "not a defi nabl e term o f fixed and inflexible cont ent or meani ng, " but "necessar i l y depends upon the facts and ci rcumst ances pecul i ar to each case. " Mal l er o f Hwang, 1 0 I &N Dec. 448, 451 (BrA 1964). [n Maller o f Cervantes-Gonzalez, the Board provided a list o f factors it deemed relevant in determining whether an alien has established ext reme hardship to a qualifying relative. 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565 (BrA 1999). Th e factors include the presence o f a lawful permanent resident or United States citizen spouse or parent in this country; the qualifying relative' s family ties outside the United States; the conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent o f the qualifying rel at i ve' s ties in such countries; the financial impact o f departure from this country; and significant conditions o f health, patticularly when tied to an unavailability o f suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate.
!d. Th e Board added that not all o f the foregoing factors need be anal yzed in any given case and
emphasi zed that the list o f factors was not exclusive. ld. at 566.
Th e Board has also held that the common or typical results o f deport at i on, removal and
i nadmi ssi bi l i t y do not const i t ut e ext r eme hardshi p, and has listed cert ai n individual hardshi p factors
consi der ed c ommon rat her than ext reme. Th e s e factors include: economi c di sadvant age, loss o f current empl oyment , inability to mai nt ai n o n e ' s present standard o f living, inability to pur sue a chosen profession, separat i on from family members, severi ng communi t y ties, cultural readj ust ment aft er living in the United St at es for many years, cultural adj ust ment o f qual i f yi ng relatives who have never lived out si de t he Uni t ed States, inferior economi c and educat i onal opport uni t i es in t he foreign count ry, or inferior medical facilities in the foreign country. See general l y Mal l er o f Cervanles-
Gonzal ez, 22 I&N Dec. at 568; Mal l er o f Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. at 631-32; Mat t er o f Ige, 20 I&N Dec. at 883; Mal l er o f Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. 245, 246-47 ( Co mm' r 1984); Mal l er o f Kim, 15 I&N Dec. 88, 89-90 (BrA 1974); Mal l er of Shal l gl l l l es s y, 12 I&N Dec. 810, 813 (BIA 1968).
However , though hardships may not be ext r eme when consi dered abst ract l y or individually, the
Board has made it cl ear that "[r]el evant factors, though not ext r eme in t hemsel ves, must b e
consi dered in the aggregat e in det ermi ni ng whet her ext reme hardship exi st s. " Mat t er o f D-J-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 381, 383 ( Br A 1996) (quot i ng Mal l er o f Ige, 20 I&N Dec. at 882). Th e adj udi cat or "mus t consi der the ent i r e range o f factors concer ni ng hardshi p in t hei r totality and det er mi ne whet her the combi nat i on o f hardships takes the case beyond those hardships ordi nari l y associ at ed with deport at i on. " ld.
We obs er ve that t he actual hardshi p associ at ed wi t h an abstract har dshi p fact or s uch as family separat i on, e c onomi c di sadvant age, cultural r eadj ust ment , et cet era, differs in nat ur e and severit y dependi ng on the uni que ci rcumst ances o f each case, as does the cumul at i ve har ds hi p a qual i fyi ng r el at i ve exper i ences as a result o f aggregat ed individu~1 hardships. See, e.g., III re Bing Chill Kao al l d Mei TSlli Lill, 23 I&N Dec. 45, 51 ( BI A 2001) ( di st i ngui shi ng Mal l er o f Pilch regardi ng har dshi p faced b y qual i fyi ng relatives on t he basis o f variations in the l engt h o f r esi dence in the Uni t ed St at es and t he ability to s pe a k the l anguage o f t he count r y to whi ch t hey woul d relocate). Fami l y separat i on, for instance, has been found to b e a c ommon result o f i nadmi ssi bi l i t y o r removal in s o me cases. See Mal l er o f Shallghllessy, 12 I&N Dec. at 813. Nevertheless, family ties are to be consi der ed in anal yzi ng hardship. See Maller o f CelllQlltes-Gollzalez, 2 2 I&N Dec. at 565-66. The quest i on o f whet her family separ at i on is the or di nar y result o f i nadmi ssi bi l i t y o r removal may
depend on the nat ure o f family rel at i onshi p consi dered. For exampl e, in Mal t er o f Shallghllessy, the Board consi der ed the scenari o o f parents bei ng separ at ed from their s oon- t o-be adult son, finding that this separ at i on woul d not resul t in ext r eme har dshi p to the parents. Id. at 811- 12; see also U.S. v. Arri et a, 2 2 4 FJ d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) ( " Mr . An i e t a was not a s pous e, but a son and brother. I t was evi dent from t he record that the ef f ect o f thdepor t at i on or der woul d be separ at i on rather than rel ocat i on. "). In Mal t er o f Cervalltes-Gollzalez, the Boar d cons i der ed the scenar i o o f the r es pondent ' s s pous e accompanyi ng him to Mexico, finding that s he woul d not exper i ence ext r eme har dshi p from l os i ng "physi cal proxi mi t y to her fami l y" in the Uni t ed States. 22 I&N Dec. at 566- 67.