Matter of Laureano

The United States citizen petitioner applied for immediate rela- tive status for the beneficiary as his wife under section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b) (1982). In a decision dated June 7, 1982, the acting district director denied the visa petition on the ground that the petitioner and beneficiary had failed to show the existence of a bona fide marital relationship, and that the beneficiary was therefore entitled to no status based upon

美国公民申请人根据《移民和国籍法》第201(b)条，8 U.S.C. § 1151(b) (1982)，为其妻子即受益人申请直系亲属身份。在1982年6月7日的决定中，代理地区主任拒绝了该签证申请，理由是申请人和受益人未能证明存在善意的婚姻关系，因此受益人无权基于

the petition. The petitioner has appealed. The appeal will be dis- missed. The beneficiary is a 45-year-old native and citizen of the Domini- can Republic. She last arrived in the United States on October 11, 1980. A marriage certificate in the record indicates that she mar- ried the petitioner, who is 60 years old, in Puerto Rico on June 21, 1981. The petitipner filed a visa petition on behalf of the benefici- ary on December 17, 1981. On December 17, 1981, the petitioner and beneficiary were inter- viewed by the Tmmigration and Naturalization Service with respect to the visa. Thereafter, the petitioner withdrew the visa petition, stating that he married the beneficiary to do her a favor so that she would be able to obtain her residence and remain in Puerto Rico? On April 14, 1982, the petitioner filed his second visa peti- tion request on behalf of the beneficiary. Based upon petitioner's sworn statement of December 17, 1981, the acting district director concluded that the petitioner's marriage was entered into for the purpose of circumventing the immigration laws and, therefore, denied the visa petition. On appeal, the petitioner contends through counsel's written brief dated August 12, 1982, that (1) petitioner was not represented by counsel and was forced to withdraw the first visa petition under duress by the Service; (2) the Service did not afford petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence in support of his second visa petition application; (3) the acting district director's contention that petitioner's statement upon withdrawal "contains an irreversi- ble admission of fraud, impossible to be overcome by additional evi- dence" is contrary to law, regulations, and administrative proce- dure; and (4) petitioner has additional evidence to be added to the record attesting to the bona fides of his marriage. A marriage that is entered into for the primary purpose of cir- cumventing the immigration laws, referred to as a fraudulent or sham marriage, has not been recognized as enabling an alien spouse to obtain immigration benefits. Matter of McKee, 17 I&N Dec. 332 (BIA 1950); see also Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (1953); McLat v. Longo, 412 F. Supp. 1021 (D.V.I. 1976); Matter of M-, 8 I&N Dec. 217 (BIA 1958). See generally Johl v. United States, 370 F.2d 174 (9th Cir. 1966). The central question is whether the

该申请获得任何身份。申请人已提出上诉。上诉将被驳回。 受益人是45岁的多米尼加共和国本土公民。她最后一次抵达美国是在1980年10月11日。记录中的结婚证书表明她于1981年6月21日在波多黎各与60岁的申请人结婚。申请人于1981年12月17日代表受益人提交了签证申请。 1981年12月17日，申请人和受益人接受了移民和归化局关于签证的面试。此后，申请人撤回了签证申请，称他与受益人结婚是为了帮她一个忙，以便她能够获得居留权并留在波多黎各？1982年4月14日，申请人代表受益人提交了第二份签证申请。 根据申请人1981年12月17日的宣誓声明，代理地区主任认定申请人的婚姻是为规避移民法而缔结的，因此拒绝了签证申请。 在上诉中，申请人通过律师1982年8月12日的书面简报主张：(1) 申请人没有律师代表，并在服务局的胁迫下被迫撤回第一份签证申请；(2) 服务局未给予申请人机会提交支持其第二份签证申请的其他证据；(3) 代理地区主任关于申请人在撤回时的陈述“包含不可逆转的欺诈承认，无法通过其他证据克服”的主张违反法律、法规和行政程序；以及(4) 申请人有其他证据可添加到记录中，证明其婚姻的善意。 主要为规避移民法而缔结的婚姻，称为欺诈性婚姻或假结婚，未被承认能使外籍配偶获得移民利益。Matter of McKee, 17 I&N Dec. 332 (BIA 1950)；另见 Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (1953)；McLat v. Longo, 412 F. Supp. 1021 (D.V.I. 1976)；Matter of M-, 8 I&N Dec. 217 (BIA 1958)。一般参见 Johl v. United States, 370 F.2d 174 (9th Cir. 1966)。核心问题是

bride and groom intended to establish a life together at the time they were married. Bark v. INS, 511 F.2d 1200 (9th Cis. 1975); Matter of McKee, supra. The conduct of the parties after marriage is relevant to their intent at the time of marriage. Lutwak v. United States, supra; Bark v. INS, supra. Evidence to establish intent could take many forms, including, but not limited to, proof that the beneficiary has been listed as the petitioner's spouse on insurance policies, proper- ty leases, income tax forms, or bank accounts, and testimony or other evidence regarding courtship, wedding ceremony, shared resi- dence, and experiences. Matter of Phillis, 15 I&N Dec. 385 (BIA 1975). In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner has the burden of es- tablishing eligibility for the benefits sought. Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA. 1966). Further, where there is reason to doubt the validity of the marital relationship, the petitioner must present evidence to show that the marriage was not entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. Matter of supra. In this case, the petitioner has submitted a certificate of mar- riage to the beneficiary. However, in view of the petitioner's state- ment in December 1981 when he withdrew his first visa petition application on behalf of the beneficiary, the acting district director found that the petitioner had failed to establish the bona fides of his marital relationship with the beneficiary. Where a visa petition has once been withdrawn based on an admission by a party that the marriage was solely entered into to bestow an immigration benefit, any subsequently filed visa petition involving the same pe- titioner and beneficiary must include at the time of filing (1) an ex- planation of the prior withdrawal and (2) evidence supporting the bona fides of the parties' relationship. Absent such materials at the time of filing, a district director can reasonably deny the petition based on the admission made in conjunction with the prior with- drawal. In the present case, although the petitioner contends that the Service did not allow him the opportunity to submit additional evidence which he contends he has accumulated attesting to the bona fides of his marriage with the beneficiary, we find that the pertinent evidence submitted on appeal does not overcome the in- ference of fraud or demonstrate the bona fides of this marriage. 2

新娘和新郎在结婚时是否打算共同建立生活。Bark v. INS, 511 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1975)；Matter of McKee，同上。 当事人在婚姻后的行为与其在结婚时的意图相关。Lutwak v. United States，同上；Bark v. INS，同上。证明意图的证据可采取多种形式，包括但不限于证明受益人已在保险单、财产租赁、所得税表格或银行账户上被列为申请人配偶的证据，以及关于求爱、婚礼仪式、共同居住和经历方面的证言或其他证据。Matter of Phillis, 15 I&N Dec. 385 (BIA 1975)。 在签证申请程序中，申请人承担证明所寻求利益资格的责任。Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966)。此外，若有理由怀疑婚姻关系的有效性，申请人必须提交证据表明婚姻并非为规避移民法而缔结。Matter of，同上。 在本案中，申请人提交了与受益人的结婚证书。然而，鉴于申请人于1981年12月撤回其代表受益人的第一份签证申请时的陈述，代理地区主任认定申请人未能证明其与受益人婚姻关系的善意。若签证申请曾因一方承认婚姻仅为授予移民利益而缔结而被撤回，则任何随后提交的涉及同一申请人和受益人的签证申请必须在提交时包括(1) 对先前撤回的解释，以及(2) 支持当事人关系善意的证据。若在提交时缺少此类材料，地区主任可以基于与先前撤回相关的承认合理地拒绝申请。在本案中，尽管申请人主张服务局未允许其提交其声称已收集的证明其与受益人婚姻善意的其他证据，但我们认定上诉时提交的相关证据不能推翻欺诈的推断或证明该婚姻的善意。2

junction with the withdrawal of a first visa petition can be over- come by new evidence. However, the petitioner bears a heavy burden to establish the bona fides of the relationship. This he has not done. Finally, we find no evidence of duress imposed by the Service upon the petitioner in withdrawing the first visa petition. In view of the foregoing, we conclude the petitioner has failed to establish that his marriage to the beneficiary is valid for immigra- tion purposes. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

撤回第一份签证申请时所作的承认可以通过新证据克服。然而，申请人承担证明关系善意的沉重举证责任。他未能做到。最后，我们未发现服务局在申请人撤回第一份签证申请时对其施加胁迫的证据。 鉴于上述情况，我们认定申请人未能证明其与受益人的婚姻为移民目的有效。因此，上诉将被驳回。 命令：上诉驳回。