MATTER OF F-B-A-

APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: JULY 14,2016

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

The Petitioner seeks immigrant classification as an abused spouse of a U.S. citizen. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 204(a)(1)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(l)(A)(iii). Under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), an abused spouse may self-petition as an immediate relative rather than remain with or rely upon an abuser to secur€ immigration benefits.

The Petitioner is a citizen of Ghana, who last entered the United States as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor. The Petitioner wed K-H-, 1 a U.S. citizen and subsequently filed two Forms I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow( er) or Special Immigrant (VA W A petitions). The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied both petitions and concluded that with the instant VA W A petition the Petitioner had not established that she entered into the marriage in good faith and that she resided with her U.S. citizen spouse.

The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief. The Petitioner claims that she has established, through documentary evidence, that she was eligible for the benefit sought.

Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. APPLICABLE LAW

Section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii)(I) ofthe 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)(1)(A)(iii)(II) of the Act.

1 Name withheld to protect the individual's identity.

Matter of F-B-A-

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 under section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act are explicated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(l), which states, in pertinent part:

(v) Residence . ... The self-petitioner is not required to be living with the abuser when the petition is filed, but he or she must have resided with the abuser ... in the past.

(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.

The evidentiary guidelines under section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act are further explicated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2), which states, in pertinent part:

(iii) Residence. One or more documents may be submitted showing that the self-petitioner and the abuser have resided together . . . .Employment records, school records, hospital or medical records, rental records, insurance policies, affidavits or any other type of relevant credible evidence of residency may be submitted.

(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 affidavits of persons with personal knowledge of the relationship. All credible relevant evidence will be considered.

The burden of proof is on a petitioner to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). A petitioner may submit any evidence for us to consider; however, we determine, in our sole discretion, the credibility of and the weight to give that evidence. See section 204(a)(l)(J) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(i).

2

(b)(6)

Matter of F-B-A-

II. ANALYSIS

A. Joint Residence

The relevant evidence submitted below does not demonstrate that the Petitioner resided with her spouse and the Petitioner does not submit evidence on appeal to pvercome this ground for denial. On her VA WA petitions, the Petitioner stated that she resided with K-H- from May 2005 until August 2008, and that their last joint address was on in Virginia. In support of her claim of joint residence, the Petitioner submitted affidavits from friends,

, and a letter from her Pastor,

In her first personal statement, the Petitioner did not describe her residence with K-H- in any probative details. She did not provide information about their shared belongings and residential routines, apart from the abuse. In her brief and supplemental statement submitted in response to the Director's notice of intentto deny (NOID), the Petitioner stated that she and K-H- resided together as husband and wife and they shared a common life together. She referenced the statements from her friends and her pastor as evidence that she resided with her spouse. She reiterated that she did not have any additional documentary evidence, other than the ones that she has already submitted. As with her previous statements, the Petitioner did not address the claimed joint residence in any meaningful way, or her life with K-H- in their claimed joint residence.

Similarly, the affidavits from the Petitioner's friends did not establish that the Petitioner jointly resided with K-H-. In her affidavit, stated that the Petitioner was member of her church congregation. She stated that she socialized with the couple and visited them at their home, but she did not describe any specific residential visits or social occasion in detail, or otherwise provide probative details regarding the couple's living arrangements. In her affidavit, stated that she attended the couple's wedding and socialized with them, but she does not provide any probative details of her interactions with the couple at their residence, nor does she describe any visits to the couple's home. In his letter, Pastor stated he blessed the couple's union after their wedding and he interacted with them in his capacity as a pastor, but he did not provide any probative details of his interactions with the couple at their residence, or describe their home in any detail.

On appeal, the Petitioner does not address joint residence with K-H-, nor does she provide any additional documents to establish joint residence. Traditional forms of joint documentation are not required to demonstrate a self-Petitioner's joint residence. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(2)(iii). 204.2( c )(2)(i). Rather, a self-petitioner may submit "affidavits of persons with personal knowledge of the relationship or any other type of relevant credible evidence of residency." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(iii). Here, however, the Petitioner's affidavits and the affidavits from her friends and the letter from her Pastor do not provide sufficient and substantive information relating to the Petitioner's claim of joint residence with K-H-. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that she resided with K-H- after their marriage as required by section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii)(II)(dd) of the Act.

3

(b)(6)

Matter of F-B-A-

B. Good-Faith Entry into the Marriage

The relevant evidence submitted below does not demonstrate the Petitioner's entry into the marriage in good faith. The record contains the Petitioner's affidavits, affidavits from friends, and a letter from her pastor.

In her initial affidavit, the Petitioner recounted meeting K-H- at a July 4th picnic, five weeks after she arrived in the United States. She recalled that after their initial meeting, K-H- called her a few days later to check up on her, and that they subsequently began dating. She recalled that during their courtship, K-H- took her out to eat, shop, and go for walks in the park. She recounted that she spent the holidays with K-H- and his family. She recalled that K-H- surprised her with a Valentine's Day

· proposal and that they later wed. The Petitioner recounted that during the first few months after the wedding, K-H- treated her well, but that she noticed a change in him after he filed immigration papers on her behalf. She recalled that K-H- complained that because she did not work and did not contribute to the household expenses, she was a burden to him. She recalled that K-H- threatened to leave her after their attempts to conceive were not successful. The remainder of the Petitioner's statement addressed the abuse in the relationship. The Petitioner did not further describe her relationship with K-H- and her intentions for marrying him.

In her brief and supplemental statement submitted in response to the NOID, the Petitioner stated that she and K-H- lived together as husband and wife and that they shared a common life together. She referenced the statement from her friends and pastor to support her claim. As with her previous affidavit, the Petitioner's supplemental affidavit did not provide sufficient probative details about her relationship with K-H-, wedding ceremony, shared residence and experiences to establish that she entered into the marriage with K-H- in good faith. Similarly, the affidavits from the Petitioner's friends and the letter from her pastor did not provide any additional details that address the Petitioner's marital intentions.

In her affidavit, friend . recounted that she met the Petitioner at church. She recalled that the couple attended church services together and they socialized during church organized events. She recounted that she could not attend the couple's wedding ceremony, but that she participated in their reception. She recounted that in 2007 when the Petitioner began to attend church services alone, she became concerned and started to visit the couple. She recalled that during her visits, K-H­was never home. She recounted that eventually the Petitioner opened up to her about the abuse in their relationship. Ms. did not further provide any probative details regarding the Petitioner's intention in marrying her spouse.

In her affidavit, friend stated that she was a childhood friend of the Petitioner's in Ghana and that they reconnected in the United States. She recalled that she and a friend invited the Petitioner to the picnic, where she met K-H-. She recounted that she socialized with the couple and spent a Thanksgiving Holiday with them. She recalled attending the couple's wedding and organizing a small reception for the couple after the wedding. The remainder of

4

(b)(6)

Matter of F-B-A-

statement recounted the problems in the couple's relationship and she did not discuss the Petitioner's good-faith intentions in entering the marriage.

Pastor , in his letter, stated that he blessed the couple's union after the wedding ceremony. Pastor recounted that the Petitioner and K-H- usually attended Sunday services together, but he later noticed that the Petitioner came to services alone. After a few pastoral counseling sessions, Pastor stated that the Petitioner confided in him that K-H- was abusing her. The remainder of Pastor statement addressed the abuse and he did not provide any detailed information regarding the Petitioner's good faith marital intentions.

In her supplemental statement submitted in response to the NOID, the Petitioner recounted that after they met, K-H- charmed her to get her contact information; he became her boyfriend; then her fiance; and later her husband. She recalled that they had a great relationship "until he changed and became a monster." She indicated that her friends' affidavits and her pastor's letter affirmed their relationship as husband and wife. The Petitioner recounted that because of her belief that a man is the head of the household, she gave K-H- money to pay the household bills. However, he paid some of the household bills, but spent the rest on "foolishness." She reiterated that she did not have any additional documentary evidence than the ones that she has already submitted because K-H- kept most the documents that were in both of their names. The Petitioner's supplemental statement did not provide further probative details about her relationship with K-H-, their courtship, wedding ceremony, shared residence and experiences, apart from the claimed abuse, to establish that she entered into the marriage with K-H- in good faith.

In her brief on appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she had submitted sufficient credible evidence to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that she entered into the marriage in good faith. She further asserts that the Director erroneously applied the clear and convincing standard" and not the "any credible evidence standard" in making the good faith marriage determination. The Petitioner's assertions are not supported by the record. The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that she resided with or that she entered into the marriage in good faith. For self-petitioning abused spouses, the statute prescribes an evidentiary standard, which mandates that USCIS "shall consider any credible evidence relevant to the petition." However, this mandate establishes an evidentiary standard, not a burden of proof. The "determination of what evidence is credible and the weight to be given that evidence shall be within the sole discretion of [USCIS]." Section 204(a)(l)(J) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(i). Here, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner entered the marriage in good faith. Specifically, the Petitioner's affidavits provide no probative account of the couple's courtship, wedding ceremony, shared residence, or shared experiences. Similarly, the affidavits from the Petitioner's friends and the letter from her pastor do not provide detailed information establishing their personal knowledge of the relationship, apart from the alleged abuse. Accordingly, the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner entered into the marriage in good faith as required by section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii)(I)(aa) of the Act.

5

Matter of F-B-A-

III. CONCLUSION

In these proceedings, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish eligibility. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter of F-B-A -, ID# 17265 (AAO July 14, 20 16)

6