U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF H-I-

APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: FEB. 6, 2017

PETITION: FORM 1-360, 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)(l)(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 secure immigration benefits.

I

The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that he resided with his U.S. citizen spouse and that he entered into the marriage in good faith.

The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence.

Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal.

I. LAW

Section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii)(l) of the Act provides that a foreign national who is the spouse of a United States citizen may self-petition for immigrant classification if the foreign national demonstrates that he or she entered into the marriage with the United States citizen spouse in good faith and that during the marriage, the foreign national or a child of the foreign national was battered or subjected to extreme cruelty perpetrated by the foreign national's spouse. In addition, the foreign national 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)(ll) 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].

Matter of H-1-

;

The eligibility requirements 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 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) Goodfaith 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) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(i).

2

(b)(6)

Matter of H-1-

II. ANALYSIS

The Petitioner is a citizen of Pakistan, who last entered the United States with a K-1 nonimmigrant visa. The Petitioner married, N-M-, 1 a U.S. citizen, and subsequently filed the instant Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant (VA WA petition).

A. Joint Residence

The relevant evidence submitted below and on appeal demonstrates the Petitioner's joint residence with N-M-.

On his VA WA petition, the Petitioner stated that he resided with N-M-. However, he did not initially submit any evidence to establish his joint residency. In response to a request for additional evidence, the Petitioner submitted copies of joint account statements, correspondence from

correspondence from the Social Security Administration, and correspondence from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, addressed to the joint residence. The Director determined that the documentary evidence was insufficient to establish joint residence and specifically noted that the bank statements were dated subsequent to the period that the Petitioner claimed that he resided with his spouse. Further, the Director found that some of the documentary evidence were addressed solely to the Petitioner, and that they were not evidence of a shared residence.

Nonetheless, traditional forms of joint documentation are not required to demonstrate a self­Petitioner'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 knpwledge o.f the relationship or any other type of relevant credible evidence of residency." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(iii).

The Petitioner provided a personal statement and statements from friends and family. In his statement below, the Petitioner recounted his arranged marriage to N-M-, their subsequent marriage ceremony, and his move to the United States to live with N-M- and her family. However, in his statement, the Petitioner did not provide substantive information regarding his joint residence. Likewise, the statements from the Petitioner's family and friends did not contain detailed, probative information demonstrating that the Petitioner and N-M- lived together during their marriage. The Director correctly determined that the evidence did not establish that the.Petitioner resided with his spouse.

On appeal the Petitioner asserts that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish liis joint residence with N-M-. IIe submits an updated personal statement, supplemental statements from his family and friends, additional statements, a jointly addressed shipping label, a copy of his Maryland identification card, court summons, health insurance documents, and ar;t invoice, reflecting

1 Name withheld to protect the individual's identity.

3

(b)(6)

Matter of H-I-

the claimed joint address. He also submits photographs that he and N-M- had taken together at the joint residence.

In his supplemental statement on appeal, the Petitioner explains his lack of documentary evidence and states that he has no evidence of his joint residence 'vith N-M-, because he resided with his in-lavvs and the residential lease was in their name. He also provides additional information regarding the periods of joint residence with N-M-, including detailed description of their homes and shared experiences during their joint residence.

The supplemental statements from the Petitioner's family and friends likewise provide substantive information regarding the Petitioner's joint residence. The Petitioner's sister, M-M- states that the couple resided together in Maryland. She adds that she often visited the couple at their residence and she brought them household items to decorate their home. The Petitioner's parents indicate that the couple resided together at the home of N-M-'s parents. They recall that during their visit to the United States, the couple showed them the room that they shared in their in­laws' home. The Petitioner' s brother-in-law, K-M- states that he and his wife often visited with the Petitioner at their residence. The Petitioner' s friend A-K- reveals that he knew that the couple resided together because the Petitioner shared his residential address with him and he recalls picking the Petitioner up at that address.

The statements submitted on appeal, in conjuncti~n with the evidence submitted below, provide a detailed and credible account of the Petitioner' s joint residence with N-M-. When viewed in the totality, the preponderance of the relevant evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner jointly resided with N-M-, as required by sections 204(a)(l)(A)(iii)(I)(aa) and (II)(dd) of the Act.

B. Good-Faith Entry into the Marriage

The relevant evidence submitted below and on appeal demonstrates the Petitioner's good faith entry into his marriage with N-M-.

The Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide probative details about his relationship with N-M-, their courtship, wedding ceremony, shared residence, and experiences, to establish that he entered into the marriage with N-M- in good .faith. The Director also concluded that statements of the Petitioner' s' friends and family lacked substantive information regarding their knowledge of the couple ' s relationship and the Petitioner' s marital intentions. She further determined that the

account statements showed that the Petitioner and N-M- shared a bank account but that some of the bank statements were dated after the couple's separation, decreasing their evidentiary value. In addition, the Director found that the photographs did not establish that the Petitioner entered into his ·marriage with N-M- in good faith.

The Petitioner also submitted below a copy of a flight itinerary, hotel reservation for N-M-'s visit to Australia, text messages exchanged between him and N-M-, telephone log for calls made between him and N-M-, and confirmation for flowers delivery on Valentine ' s Day.

4

(b)(6)

Matter of H-1-

In his statements below, the Petitioner recounted his initial introduction to N-M-, her visits to Australia to visit him, their subsequent ring ceremony, and his relocation to the United States to join N-M-. The Petitioner also provided letters from his friends and family. In her affidavit, the Petitioner's sister, M-M- stated that she introduced her family to N-M-'s family. M-M- stated that her parents and N-M-' s parents arranged the couples ' marriage. She recalled that the couple met over and that N-M- later visited the Petitioner in Australia. She stated that the Petitioner came to the United States to marry N-M- and that initially the couple temporarily stayed with her and her husband, but then resided with N-M- ' s parents in Maryland. The Petitioner's brother-in-law, M-K-M- recounted his social interactions with the couple. He recalled that he was present when the Petitioner arrived in the United States to marry N-M-, and that he attended the couple's wedding. The Petitioner's friend M-A-A- stated that he has known the Petitioner for a number of years when they both resided in Pakistan and Australia. He attested that he interacted with the couple when N-M- visited Australia, and again when they visited him in New· Jersey.

On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that he has submitted sufficient evidence to establish good faith marriage. ;The Petitioner also submits a supplemental personal statement, and supplemental statements from his family and friends. In his statement, the Petitioner provides additional details about his initial introduction to N-M-, their courtship arranged by their families in accordance with the Islamic religion and Pakistani culture, their wedding ceremony, and their shared experiences during the marriage.

In their supplemental statements, the Petitioner' s parents, M-1-M- and N-A- provide probative details about the Petitioner' s and N-M- 's weddings and their living situation afterwards. They recount how their family and N-M-' s family arranged the introduction a'nd subsequent marriage of the Petitioner and N-M-, and they affirm that the couple ' s marriage was genuine. The Petitioner'.s brother-in-law, K-M-, states that after the Petitioner and N-M- were married, he invited the couple to celebrate. They dined at and the couple shared photos of their wedding with him. S-A-K-, the Petitioner's brother-in-law, states that he and his family participated in arranging the couple's marriage and he recalls attending the couple's wedding. The Petitioner's friend, N-A­states that the Petitioner introduced him to N-M- via and that he witnessed their marriage on

N-A- states that he met N-M- in person when she visited Australia and that the couple appeared to be happy with each other. J-A-S- states that he also met N-M- when she visited the Petitioner in Australia. He recalls that since the Petitioner's family could not be present, he and other friends participated in the ring ceremony that was held in Australia. The Petitioner' s friend A-K- states that he met N-M- during her visit to Australia. He recalls inviting the couple to his home in New Jersey, where they spend time sightseeing and shopping. A- states that she met the Petitioner and N-M- when they came to his restaurant for dinner. She recalls that the couple .also inquired about the restaurants' catering service for their wedding reception. The Petitioner also provided a letter from his ·former spouse, N-M-, in which she explained their arranged marriage, her visits to Australia, and their plans to wed.

5

Matter of H-1-

The Petitioner's additional self-affidavit on appeal describes in probative detail his courtship with N-M- and his good faith intentions upon marrying her. The supplemental affidavits from his family and friends attest to the Petitioners good faith marriage with the Petitioner. When viewed in the totality, the preponderance of the n~levant evidence submitted below and on appeal demonstrates that the Petitioner entered into the marriage with N-M- in good faith, as required by section 204(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I)(aa) of the Act.

III. CONCLUSION

On appeal, the Petitioner has overcome the Director's ground for denial and he is consequently eligible for imm,rant 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has been met.

ORDER: The appeal is sustained.

Cite as Matter of H-1-, ID# 63677 (AAO Feb. 6, 2017)

6