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.
This filing is decided against a materially higher standard. A report built for extreme hardship has answered the wrong question.
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.
Response validity can be especially important in forensic and immigration evaluations. In immigration court, where the report may be examined directly, it is addressed in the report rather than assumed.
Where a child's development or schooling carries the hardship argument, it is tested. In this forum an untested assertion about a child is among the first things challenged.
business days is the general timeline from the completed evaluation to the delivered report. An expedited timeline may be possible when a deadline is close.
The pre-referral conversation costs nothing. If an evaluation is not indicated for the case, you should hear that first.
