I-601 Denial: A Former Asylee Spouse’s Health and Relocation Hardship

A husband entered the United States through an asylee-relative petition, later became a U.S. citizen, and experienced leg pain, depression and anxiety. Why was his wife’s I-601 waiver still denied? In In Re: 40991038, decided on 07/09/2026, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish extreme hardship to the husband if he relocated with his wife to China. It dismissed the appeal.

In this non-precedent decision, the AAO examined how the husband’s immigration history, health and family circumstances would affect his life after relocation. Its conclusion rested on the evidence submitted in this case.

Whose hardship mattered, and why relocation was the focus

The applicant, a Chinese citizen, sought a waiver under INA § 212(i) of inadmissibility for fraud or willful misrepresentation so that she could seek adjustment of status. Footnote 1 on page 2 states that she had made contradictory statements about her arrest history and compliance with the terms of F-1 student status while seeking immigration benefits. She did not contest the inadmissibility finding on appeal, and the AAO found it supported by the record. The public decision does not disclose enough detail to reconstruct all of those statements.

For an ordinary case of the kind analyzed here, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i)(1) requires extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent. The relevant statutory excerpt states:

“would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such an alien”

The husband was the applicant’s only qualifying relative. Their child was not an independent qualifying relative under the ordinary spouse-based analysis applied here. Statutory exceptions, including those for VAWA self-petitioners, require separate analysis. The AAO also explained on page 1 that the hardship factors must be assessed together:

“individual hardship factors that may not rise to the level of extreme must also be considered in the aggregate.” — Decision, p. 1.

Page 2 distinguishes separation in the United States from relocation abroad, relying on USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 9, Part B, Chapter 4. The decision states:

“Demonstrating extreme hardship under both of these scenarios is not required if an applicant's evidence establishes that one of these scenarios would result from the denial of the waiver.” — Decision, p. 2.

The evidence indicated that the husband intended to relocate to China with his wife if the waiver was denied. The analysis therefore focused on relocation hardship. The decision explains that a qualifying relative may submit a statement under penalty of perjury identifying whether he would relocate or remain in the United States. Identifying the expected scenario sets the direction of the analysis; the degree of hardship must still be proved.

Why the asylum background did not establish hardship automatically

The husband stated that he was originally from China, had received asylum in the United States, and feared that the Chinese government would target him and his family upon return. He also described separation from his mother and sister in the United States. After reviewing immigration records, the AAO explained that he had entered through an approved Form I-730 petition filed for him by his mother, an asylee.

On page 3, the AAO recognized prior asylee status as a relevant factor, citing USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 9, Part B, Chapter 5. It quoted the policy’s qualification:

“the mere presence of an enumerated circumstance does not create a presumption of extreme hardship.” — Decision, p. 3.

The applicant asserted on appeal that her husband’s family had suffered religious persecution. His own statement referred generally to punishment of political opponents, without explaining his political-persecution claim in detail or mentioning a fear of religious persecution. The AAO also stated:

“Nor does he explain how the Chinese government would have reason to know that he was previously granted status in the United States as a child of an asylee.” — Decision, p. 3.

The AAO found no adequate explanation of how the government would know about his former derivative status, and no specific connection between the submitted China news reports and his own fears. These were findings about the detail and relevance of this record. They do not establish that all former derivative asylees face no risk upon return, and the decision did not revoke his former status.

Connecting the travel advisory to the husband’s circumstances

The applicant also relied on the State Department’s China travel advisory. The AAO distinguished a general risk advisory from an affirmative recommendation against travel or a recommendation to depart. Page 3 described the China advisory considered in the decision as Level 2, “exercise increased caution,” rather than Level 4, “do not travel.” This describes the material discussed in the historical decision; it is not a statement of today’s advisory level or travel advice.

The decision noted examples involving business disputes, connections to U.S. companies, and ties to U.S. law enforcement, the military, intelligence agencies or government programs. The husband’s statement did not claim those connections. The AAO concluded:

“his claims of fearing that he would be targeted by the Chinese government are general and do not contain specific details.” — Decision, p. 3.

The decision does not establish that hardship can be shown only by fitting those examples, or that a Level 2 advisory has no evidentiary value in every case. Its analysis concerned the lack of specific detail linking the asserted risk to this husband.

What the medical and psychological evidence did not explain

The psychological evaluation identified major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, a problematic pattern of alcohol use, and residual posttraumatic stress disorder. Medical records documented right tibia and ankle-area fractures in 2022. The AAO focused on the symptoms, severity, treatment and effects of relocation rather than treating diagnostic labels as conclusive.

Page 4 described the medical records as showing that the husband was:

“discharged with "no restrictions," and prescribed pain medication.” — Decision, p. 4.

The AAO found inadequate explanation from a treating physician or other evidence about the current condition’s nature and severity, prognosis, needed treatment and family assistance, and effect on daily life. Footnote 3 explains that the psychological evaluation’s brief discussion of physical conditions was based on the husband’s account; it did not indicate that the psychologist had reviewed his medical records.

As to the psychological evaluation, the AAO observed:

“it does not discuss whether he could receive treatment for these conditions in China.” — Decision, p. 4.

The evaluation had not adequately connected the diagnoses to the practical consequences of relocation. This did not amount to a finding that China necessarily offered treatment appropriate to him.

Footnote 2 explains that the California Department of Motor Vehicles disabled-person placard receipt was not a formal government disability determination. The AAO also examined the medical records and psychological evaluation, finding that they needed more detail about the husband’s condition and care needs.

The child’s hardship and the limits of the outcome

Footnote 4 on page 4 states:

“We may consider the hardship to the Applicant's son only as it affects her qualifying relative spouse.” — Decision, p. 4.

The AAO acknowledged that relocating with their eight-year-old U.S. citizen son, who would have to adjust to a new country’s culture, would cause the husband some hardship. Considering the evidence together, however, it found insufficient detail to establish that the difficulties, individually or cumulatively, exceeded the common consequences of removal.

Because extreme hardship had not been established, the AAO did not continue to the question of favorable discretion. Page 4 states that:

“no purpose would be served in determining whether the Applicant merits a waiver as a matter of discretion.” — Decision, p. 4.

The final order was:

“The appeal is dismissed.” — Decision, p. 4.

The waiver remained denied after the appeal was dismissed. The decision also included a general notice about possible removal proceedings for people without lawful presence or with inadmissibility or deportability issues; it did not report that such proceedings had begun against this applicant.

The central evidentiary issue was whether the asylum background, country information, physical and mental health evidence, and the child’s adjustment were connected to the husband’s specific circumstances after relocation. Different facts, medical records and immigration histories may lead to different results. Counsel should assess any application, appeal or further proceedings against the complete record.

The firm’s explanation of the 2023 I-601 spouse-medical-hardship decision also examines medical and family-support evidence. There, the spouse’s plans to remain or relocate were unclear. The two decisions’ scenario analyses should therefore not be treated as interchangeable.

Legal Disclaimer. Originally published: 10/24/2026. This article provides general information only and is not legal advice for any particular matter. Laws, policies, procedures, fees and agency practices may change; their application depends on the facts and jurisdiction. Consult a qualified attorney about your circumstances before acting on this information. Reading this article or contacting Blumsack & Canzano does not, by itself, create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.