DR. LUKE WEI-MING CHANG AND DR. AMPARO HELEN CHANG, PETITIONERS,
v.
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the denial of a waiver of the two-year home country residency requirement was proper because the petitioners did not demonstrate exceptional hardship.
Petitioners, aliens admitted as nonimmigrant exchange visitors, completed medical studies and were licensed to practice medicine. They sought a waiver…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Immigration And Nationality Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, husband and wife, are aliens who ask for review of a deportation order of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Such orders are reviewable by this court under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a.
Petitioners were admitted as nonimmigrant exchange visitors to pursue medical studies, which have now been completed. Both are licensed to practice medicine in California.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(e), aliens such as these petitioners are not eligible for immigrant visas or for permanent residency in the United States, unless they have returned for a two-year stay in their home countries. Petitioner husband requested a waiver of this requirement, asserting exceptional hardship on his wife and two children.
The application for waiver was denied by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Immigration and Naturalization Service thereupon commenced deportation proceedings against both petitioners. Assuming without deciding that petitioners may question in a deportation proceeding the denial of a waiver in a separate proceeding, we find that the waiver was properly denied. Petitioners made out no case of “exceptional hardship” sufficient to overcome the strong congressional policy underlying the residency requirement. Mendez v. Major, 340 F. 2d 128 (8th Cir. 1965); Talavera v. Pederson, 334 F. 2d 52 (6th Cir. 1964).
The petition for review is dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Majid Ghorbani v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 686 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1982)
Authorities Cited
- Mendez v. Major, 340 F.2d 128 (8th Cir. 1965)
- Talavera v. Pederson, 334 F.2d 52 (6th Cir. 1964)