MATTER OF C-A-

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: FEB. 29, 2016

MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION

PETITION: FORM I-360, PETITION FOR AMERASIAN, WIDOW(ER), OR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT

The Petitioner seeks immigrant classification as an abused spouse of a citizen of the United States. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 204(a)(l)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(l)(A)(iii). The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Petitioner subsequently filed a timely appeal that we dismissed. The matter is now before us on motions to reopen and reconsider. The motions will be denied.

I. APPLICABLE LAW

Section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii)(I) of the Act provides that an alien who is the spouse of a United States citizen . may self-petition for immigrant classification if the alien demonstrates that he or she entered into the

marriage with the United States citizen spouse in good faith and that during the marriage, the alien or a child of the alien was battered or subjected to extreme cruelty perpetrated by the alien's spouse. In addition, the alien must show that he or she is eligible to be classified as an immediate relative under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, resided with the abusive spouse, and is a person of good moral character. Section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii)(II) of the Act.

Section 204(a)(l)(J) of the Act further states, in pertinent part:

In acting on petitions filed under clause (iii) or (iv) of subparagraph (A) ... or in making determinations under subparagraphs (C) and (D), the [Secretary of Homeland Security] shall consider any credible evidence relevant to the petition. The determination of what evidence is credible and the weight to be given that evidence shall be within the sole discretion of the [Secretary of Homeland Security].

The eligibility requirements are further explicated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(l), which states, in pertinent part:

(ix) Good faith marriage. A spousal self-petition cannot be approved if the self-petitioner entered into the marriage to the abuser for the primary purpose of circumventing the immigration laws. A self-petition will not be denied, however, solely because the spouses are not living together and the marriage is no longer viable.

Matter ofC-A-

The evidentiary guidelines are further explicated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2), which states, in pertinent part:

(i) General. Self-petitioners are encouraged to submit primary evidence whenever possible. The Service will consider, however, any credible evidence relevant to the petition. The determination of what evidence is credible and the weight to be given that evidence shall be within the sole discretion ofthe Service.

(vii) Good faith marriage. Evidence of good faith at the time of marriage may include, but is not limited to, proof that one spouse has been listed as the other's spouse on insurance policies, property leases, income tax forms, or bank accounts; and testimony or other evidence regarding courtship, wedding ceremony, shared residence and experiences. Other types of readily available evidence might include the birth certificates of children born to the abuser and the spouse; police, medical, or court documents providing information about the relationship; and statements of persons with personal knowledge of the relationship. All credible relevant evidence will be considered.

II. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Our prior decision of July 15, 2015 is incorporated herein by reference, so we shall repeat only certain facts as necessary here. The Director denied the Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er) or Special Immigrant, finding that the Petitioner had not established that he entered into the marriage with his U.S. citizen spouse in good faith. We dismissed a subsequent appeal, concluding that the Petitioner had not entered into his marriage with P-R- in good faith, and that the Petitioner was therefore ineligible for immigrant classification under section 204( a)( 1 )(A )(iii) of the Act.

The matter is now before us on motions to reopen and reconsider in which the Petitioner reasserts his eligibility and contends that we abused our discretion and erred in dismissing his appeal because the record contains sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he has met his burden of proof to establish that he entered into the relationship with P-R- 1 in good faith. In support of his motions, the Petitioner submits a statement.

III. ANALYSIS

We review these proceedings de novo. A full review of the record does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility. The motions to reopen and to reconsider will be denied for the following reasons.

In his statement on motion, the Petitioner asserts that we faulted him for not saying the magic phrase "intend to establish a life together," stating that he married his wife because he loved her and that

1 Name withheld to protect identity.

2

(b)(6)

Matter of C-A-

love should be enough to establish good faith marriage. The Petitioner misinterprets our prior decision. We did not diminish the evidentiary value of the Petitioner's testimony because he did not use a particular phrase. Rather, we noted that a petitioner may submit any evidence that he would like us to consider but that we determine, in our discretion, the evidentiary value of that evidence. Section 204(a)(l)(J) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(i). As noted in our appeal decision, the Petitioner's statement in the record provided only a general account of his relationship with P-R- and he did not set forth in any probative detail the circumstances of their meeting, courtship, wedding, or shared residences and experiences to establish his good-faith marital intentions. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(vii). Nor did the remaining testimonial evidence ofrecord demonstrate that the Petitioner married P-R- in good faith. The statements from Petitioner's friends discussing the couple's relationship did not provide probative information regarding the Petitioner's intentions at the time that he entered into the marriage with P-R-. Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions on motion, his friends' statements were not detailed. They contained generalized testimony and did not offer meaningful insight into the Petitioner's relationship with P-R-. Although the Petitioner had another opportunity to supplement the record with additional evidence for us to consider regarding his good­faith intentions upon marrying, the Petitioner chose not to do so with the filing of the motion. Overall, the testimonial evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner entered into his marriage in good faith.

The Petitioner also refutes our assertion regarding the inconsistencies between the residential lease agreements and his affidavit; however, the Petitioner misconstrued our discussion of the lease in our appellate decision. We discussed the lease agreement for October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011, which bears the signatures of the Petitioner and P-R- and is signed and dated July 28, 2010. This is in contrast to the Petitioner's initial affidavit, which states that P-R- left him on 2010, nearly two weeks prior to the lease agreement being signed. The Petitioner contends that the lease agreement and his affidavit were not in conflict and explains that the lease agreement for October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011, was signed by the Petitioner on July 8, 2009, not July 28, 2009. The Petitioner erroneously concluded that we were referencing the 2009 lease agreement, when our decision discussed the lease signed in 201 0. As such, the Petitioner's contention is contradicted by the documentary evidence, which shows that the lease was signed on July 28, 2010. This inconsistency lessens the evidentiary value of the lease agreement. As the Petitioner does not address the deficiencies in regards to the lease, it is of little probative value in establishing the Petitioner's good faith intent when entering into his marriage.

The Petitioner also addresses our discussion of the psychological examination by We noted in our appeal decision the inconsistency between the Petitioner's affidavit and report in regards to the date that the Petitioner first met P-R-. The Petitioner contends that there was no discrepancy between his statement to and his affidavit regarding the first time he met P­R-. report reflects that the Petitioner met P-R- in "early-mid 2007." This is contrary to the Petitioner's own affidavit in which he states that his first meeting with P-R- occurred in 2006. The Petitioner explained that when he spoke to he did not say that he first met P-R- in 2007, but that he went to the bar and P-R- was a waitress there in December, 2006. The Petitioner indicates that this error may have occurred as a result of his inability to comprehend or speak English adequately. Although in her report noted that the "Petitioner searches for the

3

(b)(6)

Matter ofC-A-

English words to use in conversation, while in therapy," there were no indications that an interpreter was required or used during the course of the Petitioner's interview with More importantly, however, our decision regarding the Petitioner's good-faith intent when entering into his marriage was based on the evidence as a whole in the record, of which this evaluation was just one piece. The discrepancy between the Petitioner's testimony and information in this evaluation when viewed in conjunction with the other evidence of record does not establish the Petitioner's good-faith entry into his marriage.

On motion, the Petitioner also submits an article entitled, Male Victims of Domestic Violence. To the extent that the Petitioner implies that the Director was biased towards the Petitioner because of his gender, that implication is not supported in the record.

In summary, the Petitioner's statement in the record does not demonstrate his entry into his marriage in good faith. The statements of the Petitioner's friends similarly lack substantive information regarding their knowledge of the couple's relationship and the Petitioner's marital intentions.

evaluation focused primarily on the abuse and as discussed above, the Petitioner's statement to is inconsistent with the statement that he provided to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The remaining documentary evidence in the record is insufficient to establish the Petitioner's good-faith marital intentions, particularly in the absence of a probative account from the Petitioner of his relationship with P-R-. Accordingly, we reaffirm our prior finding that the preponderance of the relevant evidence does not establish that the Petitioner entered into marriage with P-R- in good faith.

IV. CONCLUSION

On motion, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he entered into his marriage with P-R- in good faith. He consequently remains ineligible for immigrant classification under section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act.

In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. at 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.

ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied.

FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied.

Cite as Matter ofC-A-, ID# 15846 (AAO Feb. 29, 2016)

4