This is not extreme hardship with stronger adjectives. It is a different and considerably higher standard, assessed in immigration court, and the psychological evidence has to be built to meet it.
This is argued in front of a judge, and the report should read like it knows that.
Testimony is available where the case calls for it.
Hardship is assessed to the qualifying relative rather than to the respondent, and it has to clear a bar most cases do not.
Conditions requiring treatment that is unavailable, unaffordable or materially worse in the country of removal.
Children with identified needs, services already in place, and whether any equivalent exists on return.
Dependency arrangements that cannot simply be reassigned to another adult.
Not reduced income alone, but the specific cost of care and treatment currently absorbed by the household.
Assessed against the qualifying relative's actual capacity to function there, not in the abstract.
The standard is comparative by construction. The report addresses how this case differs from the ordinary one.
Chosen against the referral question, administered and scored by the evaluator, and reported with what each measure was selected to answer.
The SIMS matters most to a case like this. Adjudicators are alert to overstatement, so the report answers that question directly rather than leaving it to be raised.
Where a child's development or schooling carries the hardship argument, it is tested. In this forum an untested assertion about a child is the first thing challenged.
Four parts, in this order, written to the standard your filing turns on.
Migration history, family structure, medical and caregiving load, and what is actually at stake.
Mental status, symptom picture, and functional impairment, gathered across one or more sessions in the client’s own language.
Scored and normed instrument data, presented with what each measure was chosen to answer, including response validity.
The conclusion, the reasoning behind it, and the limits of what the evaluation can support. Testimony available.
Credibility matters. Our evaluations address it directly.
A response-validity measure tests whether symptoms are being overstated. Including it means the report answers that question directly, rather than leaving it for opposing counsel to raise at hearing.
The comparison to the ordinary case is the argument. A report that documents hardship without addressing how it is unusual has answered a different question.
Scheduling within a few days. Expedited when a filing deadline requires it.
days to a completed report
business days after the evaluation, and often sooner
Turnaround is measured from the completed evaluation to the delivered report. Scheduling is separate and usually happens within a few days.
The pre-referral conversation costs nothing. If an evaluation is not indicated for the case, you should hear that first.
