Matter of R.I. Ortega

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) Interim Decision #3987

引用为 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) 临时决定 #3987

U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

美国司法部 移民审查执行办公室

Board of Immigration Appeals (1) An alien who has conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws by seeking to secure a K-1 fiancé(e) nonimmigrant visa is subject to the bar under section 204(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c)(2) (2018). (2) For purposes of section 204(c)(2) of the Act, a conspiracy requires an agreement to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. FOR PETITIONER: Jorge Guttlein, Esquire, New York, New York FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Peter N. Schmalz, Deputy Chief BEFORE: Board Panel: MALPHRUS, MULLANE, and LIEBOWITZ, Appellate Immigration Judges. MALPHRUS, Appellate Immigration Judge: In a decision dated the November 13, 2017, the Field Office Director (“Director”) revoked the approval of the visa petition filed by the petitioner on behalf of the beneficiary, holding that the approval is barred by section 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) (2012). The petitioner has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be dismissed.

移民上诉委员会 (1) 通过寻求获得K-1未婚夫（妻）非移民签证而共谋为规避移民法目的缔结婚姻的外国人，受《移民与国籍法》第204(c)(2)条，8 U.S.C. § 1154(c)(2) (2018) 规定的禁止条款约束。 (2) 就本法第204(c)(2)条而言，共谋要求有为规避移民法目的缔结婚姻的协议以及为推进该协议而实施的公开行为。 申请人代表：Jorge Guttlein 律师，纽约州纽约市 国土安全部代表：Peter N. Schmalz，副首席 审理：委员会合议庭：MALPHRUS、MULLANE 和 LIEBOWITZ，上诉移民法官。 MALPHRUS，上诉移民法官： 在2017年11月13日的决定中，外地办公室主任（“主任”）撤销了申请人为受益人提交的签证申请的批准，认定该批准受《移民与国籍法》第204(c)条，8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) (2012) 禁止。申请人已对该决定提出上诉。上诉将被驳回。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts of this case are not in dispute. The petitioner is a United States citizen, and the beneficiary, her son, is a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic. On November 17, 2004, the beneficiary’s then-fiancée, a United States citizen, filed a Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) (Form I-129F) on his behalf. The petition was approved on November 29, 2004. The beneficiary appeared for an interview at the United States Consulate in Santo Domingo on July 7, 2005, after which the case was referred for a dual interview.

I. 事实与程序历史 本案事实无争议。申请人是美国公民，其子受益人（即受益人）是多米尼加共和国国民和公民。2004年11月17日，受益人当时的未婚妻（一名美国公民）代表他提交了《外国未婚夫（妻）申请》（I-129F表）。该申请于2004年11月29日获批。受益人于2005年7月7日在圣多明各美国领事馆面谈，之后案件被转介进行双重面谈。

9

9

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) Interim Decision #3987

引用为 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) 临时决定 #3987

During that interview, the beneficiary and his fiancée provided inconsistent answers in response to questions about their relationship. On June 21, 2006, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) informed the beneficiary’s fiancée of its intent to revoke the approval of the visa petition, because it had determined that the beneficiary attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. No response was received, and the visa petition was terminated on February 13, 2007. It is undisputed that the beneficiary’s engagement with his former fiancée was not bona fide. On June 12, 2008, the petitioner filed a Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) to accord the beneficiary preference status as her unmarried son under section 203(a)(1) of Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(1) (2006). The petition was approved on August 11, 2008. On September 12, 2017, the USCIS informed the petitioner of its intent to revoke the approval of the visa petition on the grounds that the approval is barred by operation of section 204(c) of the Act. The petitioner filed a response to the notice of intent to revoke, which was received by the USCIS on October 17, 2017. The Director revoked the approval of the visa petition, and the petitioner has appealed. The issue presented in this case is whether an alien who has entered into a fictitious or “sham” engagement that served as the basis for a K-1 nonimmigrant fiancé(e) visa petition has attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws and is therefore subject to the bar at section 204(c) of the Act. We review all issues arising in visa petition appeals de novo. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iii) (2020).

在该面谈中，受益人和其未婚妻在回答有关他们关系的问题时提供了不一致的答案。2006年6月21日，美国公民及移民服务局（“USCIS”）通知受益人的未婚妻，其打算撤销签证申请的批准，因为该局认定受益人试图或共谋为规避移民法目的缔结婚姻。未收到回复，签证申请于2007年2月13日终止。无争议的是，受益人与前未婚妻的订婚并非真实。 2008年6月12日，申请人提交了《外国亲属申请》（I-130表），以根据本法第203(a)(1)条，8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(1) (2006) 给予受益人作为其未婚儿子的优先地位。该申请于2008年8月11日获批。2017年9月12日，USCIS通知申请人，其打算撤销签证申请的批准，理由是依据本法第204(c)条该批准被禁止。申请人提交了对撤销意向通知的回复，USCIS于2017年10月17日收到。主任撤销了签证申请的批准，申请人已提出上诉。 本案提出的问题是，缔结了虚假或“假”订婚且该订婚作为K-1非移民未婚夫（妻）签证申请基础的外国人，是否试图或共谋为规避移民法目的缔结婚姻，因而受本法第204(c)条禁止条款约束。我们重新审查签证申请上诉中产生的所有问题。8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iii) (2020)。

II. ANALYSIS The petitioner contests the Director’s revocation of the approval of the visa petition she filed on the beneficiary’s behalf. Under section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155 (2018), the approval of a visa petition may be revoked for “good and sufficient cause.” Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 588 (BIA 1988). Good and sufficient cause to revoke an approved visa petition exists if the evidence in the record at the time of the decision, including explanatory and rebuttal evidence, warrants a denial based on the petitioner’s failure to sustain his or her burden of proof. See Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450, 451–52 (BIA 1987). Before a decision revoking the approval of a visa petition can be issued, a notice of the Director’s intent to revoke must be sent to the petitioner, and the petitioner must be afforded an opportunity to rebut derogatory evidence and to present evidence in support of the visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i)–(ii) (2020); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 536 (BIA 1988). As is the case in the underlying visa petition

II. 分析 申请人对主任撤销其代表受益人提交的签证申请的批准提出异议。根据本法第205条，8 U.S.C. § 1155 (2018)，签证申请的批准可以因“良好和充分理由”被撤销。Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 588 (BIA 1988)。如果决定时记录中的证据（包括解释性和反驳性证据）基于申请人未能履行其举证责任而支持拒绝，则存在撤销已批准签证申请的良好和充分理由。见 Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450, 451–52 (BIA 1987)。 在可以作出撤销签证申请批准的决定之前，必须向申请人发送主任撤销意向通知，并且必须给予申请人机会反驳不利证据并提交支持签证申请的证据。见 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i)–(ii) (2020)；另见 Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 536 (BIA 1988)。如同在基础签证申请

10

10

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) Interim Decision #3987

引用为 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) 临时决定 #3987

proceedings, the petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof in visa petition revocation proceedings. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 589.

程序中一样，申请人在签证申请撤销程序中承担最终举证责任。Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 589。

A. Section 204(c) of the Act Section 204(c) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that

A. 本法第204(c)条 本法第204(c)条相关部分规定：

no petition shall be approved if (1) the alien has previously been accorded, or has sought to be accorded, an immediate relative or preference status as the spouse of a citizen of the United States or the spouse of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, by reason of a marriage determined by the Attorney General to have been entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws, or (2) the Attorney General has determined that the alien has attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. A visa petition will be denied (or revoked) pursuant to section 204(c)(2) of the Act where there is substantial and probative evidence in the record that the beneficiary previously attempted or conspired to enter into a fraudulent marriage.1 See Matter of P. Singh, 27 I&N Dec. 598, 602 (BIA 2019); 8 C.F.R § 204.2(a)(1)(ii) (2020) (“The director will deny a petition for immigrant visa classification filed on behalf of any alien for whom there is substantial and probative evidence of such an attempt or conspiracy, regardless of whether that alien received a benefit through the attempt or conspiracy.”); see also Matter of Kahy, 19 I&N Dec. 803, 807 n.3 (BIA 1988) (stating that an alien who agreed to pay a United States citizen to marry him so that he would not have to return to his native country “attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws” at the point they reached the agreement, prior to the actual marriage). The terms “attempted” and “conspired” are not defined in the Act.

如果(1)该外国人此前因司法部长认定其为规避移民法目的而缔结的婚姻，曾被给予或曾寻求被给予作为美国公民配偶或合法永久居民外国人的配偶的直系亲属或优先地位，或(2)司法部长已认定该外国人试图或共谋为规避移民法目的缔结婚姻，则不得批准任何申请。 如果记录中有大量且具有证明力的证据表明受益人此前试图或共谋缔结欺诈性婚姻，则依据本法第204(c)(2)条，签证申请将被拒绝（或撤销）。1 见 Matter of P. Singh, 27 I&N Dec. 598, 602 (BIA 2019)；8 C.F.R § 204.2(a)(1)(ii) (2020)（“如果存在此类试图或共谋的大量且具有证明力的证据，主任将拒绝代表任何外国人提交的移民签证分类申请，无论该外国人是否通过该试图或共谋获得利益。”）；另见 Matter of Kahy, 19 I&N Dec. 803, 807 n.3 (BIA 1988)（指出同意向美国公民支付报酬以与其结婚从而不必返回其原籍国的外国人，在他们达成协议之时、实际结婚之前，即“试图或共谋为规避移民法目的缔结婚姻”）。“试图”和“共谋”术语在本法中未作定义。

B. K-1 Nonimmigrant Visa Petitions The fiancé or fiancée of a United States citizen who qualifies for a nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1 Prior to 1986, the section 204(c) bar was inapplicable if an alien did not actually enter into a marriage. See Matter of Anselmo, 16 I&N Dec. 152, 153 (BIA 1977) (“In the absence of an actual marriage, section 204(c) does not apply.”); Matter of Concepcion, 16 I&N Dec. 10, 11 (BIA 1976) (holding that an alien who acquired immediate relative status based on falsified documents was not subject to the section 204(c) bar because her marriage never took place and was, in fact, a fiction). This is no longer the case after the enactment of section 4(a) of the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-639, 100 Stat. 3537, 3543, which added the language now found in section 204(c)(2) of the Act. See Matter of Isber, 20 I&N Dec. 676, 677–78 (BIA 1993) (discussing the legislative history of section 204(c) of the Act).

B. K-1非移民签证申请 符合本法第101(a)(15)(K)(i)条，8 U.S.C. 1 在1986年之前，如果外国人未实际缔结婚姻，第204(c)条禁止条款不适用。见 Matter of Anselmo, 16 I&N Dec. 152, 153 (BIA 1977)（“在无实际婚姻的情况下，第204(c)条不适用。”）；Matter of Concepcion, 16 I&N Dec. 10, 11 (BIA 1976)（认定基于伪造文件获得直系亲属身份的外国人不受第204(c)条禁止条款约束，因为其婚姻从未发生，事实上是虚构的）。在颁布《1986年移民婚姻欺诈修正案》第4(a)条，Pub. L. No. 99-639, 100 Stat. 3537, 3543（该条增加了现见于本法第204(c)(2)条的措辞）之后，情况不再如此。见 Matter of Isber, 20 I&N Dec. 676, 677–78 (BIA 1993)（讨论本法第204(c)条的立法历史）。

11

11

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) Interim Decision #3987

引用为 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) 临时决定 #3987

§ 1101(a)(15)(K)(i) (2018), as one “who seeks to enter the United States solely to conclude a valid marriage with the petitioner within ninety days after admission,” may be issued a nonimmigrant visa pursuant to section 214(d)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(d)(1) (2018). Section 214(d)(1) provides that a petition for such a visa must be supported by evidence to establish that the parties “have previously met in person within 2 years before the date of filing the petition, have a bona fide intention to marry, and are legally able and actually willing to conclude a valid marriage in the United States within a period of ninety days after the alien’s arrival.” A central element for establishing K-1 visa eligibility is that the parties have a bona fide intention to marry. The only purpose of a K-1 visa is to allow the fiancé(e)s of United States citizens to enter the United States to be married, since they cannot qualify as bona fide nonimmigrants and, until married, may not have an immigrant visa available to them. See Matter of Sesay, 25 I&N Dec. 431, 435–38 (BIA 2011) (discussing the history of the K-1 visas). Under section 245(d) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(d) (2018), the beneficiary of a K-1 visa can only adjust status based on the marriage to the fiancé(e) petitioner. Id. at 442 (“Unlike other categories of adjustment applicants, who can adjust through another family relationship or an employer, there is no other option for the fiancé(e).”); see also Matter of Valenzuela, 25 I&N Dec. 867, 870–71 (BIA 2012) (explaining that Congress imposed this restriction on K visa holders as part of its efforts to combat marriage fraud). Unlike most other nonimmigrant visas, K-1 visas provide the visa holder with a direct path to permanent status in the United States. As a result, K-1 visa holders have always been treated as the functional equivalents of immediate relatives for purposes of immigrant visa eligibility and availability. Matter of Sesay, 25 I&N Dec. at 438–39. There is no requirement for a Form I-130 immigrant visa petition to be filed for a K-1 visa holder because the adjustment of status application is predicated on the nonimmigrant Form I-129F visa petition itself. Id. at 439.

§ 1101(a)(15)(K)(i) (2018) 规定的美国公民的未婚夫或未婚妻，即“仅寻求进入美国以在入境后九十天内与申请人缔结有效婚姻”者，可以依据本法第214(d)(1)条，8 U.S.C. § 1184(d)(1) (2018) 获得非移民签证。第214(d)(1)条规定，此类签证申请必须由证据支持，以证明双方“在提交申请之日前2年内曾亲自会面，有真实的结婚意图，并且在法律上有能力且实际愿意在外国人抵达美国后九十天内缔结有效婚姻”。 确立K-1签证资格的核心要素是双方有真实的结婚意图。K-1签证的唯一目的是允许美国公民的未婚夫（妻）进入美国结婚，因为他们不能符合真实非移民的条件，并且在结婚前可能没有可用的移民签证。见 Matter of Sesay, 25 I&N Dec. 431, 435–38 (BIA 2011)（讨论K-1签证的历史）。根据本法第245(d)条，8 U.S.C. § 1255(d) (2018)，K-1签证受益人只能基于与未婚夫（妻）申请人的婚姻调整身份。Id. at 442（“与其他类别的调整身份申请人不同，他们可以通过另一家庭关系或雇主调整身份，而未婚夫（妻）没有其他选择。”）；另见 Matter of Valenzuela, 25 I&N Dec. 867, 870–71 (BIA 2012)（解释国会将这一限制强加于K签证持有人，作为其打击婚姻欺诈努力的一部分）。 与大多数其他非移民签证不同，K-1签证为签证持有人提供了在美国获得永久身份的直接途径。因此，就移民签证资格和可用性而言，K-1签证持有人一直被视为直系亲属的功能等同者。Matter of Sesay, 25 I&N Dec. at 438–39。K-1签证持有人无需提交I-130移民签证申请，因为调整身份申请本身以非移民I-129F签证申请为基础。Id. at 439。

C. Petitioner’s Appeal The beneficiary’s conduct in support of the K-1 visa petition filed on his behalf supports the Director’s determination that he conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.

C. 申请人的上诉 受益人为支持以其名义提交的K-1签证申请而实施的行为，支持了主任的认定，即其共谋缔结婚姻以规避移民法。

Under settled rules of statutory construction, we look first to the plain meaning of the language, and we are required to give effect to Congress’ unambiguously expressed intent. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984); Matter of E-S-I-, 26 I&N Dec. 136, 139 (BIA 2013). The intent of Congress is presumed to be expressed

根据既定的成文法解释规则，我们首先考察语言的平义，并且必须赋予国会明确表达的意图以效力。Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984)；Matter of E-S-I-, 26 I&N Dec. 136, 139 (BIA 2013)。国会的意图被推定通过

12

12

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) Interim Decision #3987

引用为 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) 临时决定第3987号

by the ordinary meaning of the words used. INS v. Cardoza Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987); Matter of Munroe, 26 I&N Dec. 428, 431 (BIA 2014). For purposes of section 204(c)(2) of the Act, a conspiracy requires an agreement to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. Section 204(c)(2) of the Act does not require a criminal conviction. 8 C.F.R § 204.2(a)(1)(ii) (stating that “it is not necessary that the alien have been convicted of, or even prosecuted for, the attempt or conspiracy”). Rather, the bar is triggered when “the Attorney General has determined” that a beneficiary has conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. Section 204(c)(2) of the Act. For the Attorney General to make such a “determination,” there must be an overt act. The filing of a visa petition is an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. It is not enough, however, if two parties merely “agree” to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws but never engage in any other action or conduct that furthers that agreement.2 The petitioner has not meaningfully challenged the Director’s determination that the beneficiary entered into a sham engagement with his former fiancée for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. She has made no claim that their relationship was legitimate or anything other than a sham.3 In her supplemental brief, the petitioner asserts, without further explanation, that “there is no evidence showing [the beneficiary] had an intent to enter into a fraudulent marriage while in the Dominican Republic.” This contention is irrelevant because the focus of our inquiry is whether the beneficiary intended to enter into a fraudulent marriage with his former fiancée in the United States, which would ultimately allow him to adjust his status and thereby evade the immigration laws. The petitioner does not claim

所用词语的通常含义表达。INS v. Cardoza Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987)；Matter of Munroe, 26 I&N Dec. 428, 431 (BIA 2014)。 就《移民与国籍法》第204(c)(2)条而言，共谋要求存在为规避移民法而缔结婚姻的协议，以及为促进该协议而实施的外显行为。《移民与国籍法》第204(c)(2)条不要求刑事定罪。8 C.F.R § 204.2(a)(1)(ii)（规定“外国人不必曾因未遂或共谋而被定罪，甚至不必被起诉”）。相反，当“司法部长已认定”受益人共谋缔结婚姻以规避移民法时，该禁令即被触发。《移民与国籍法》第204(c)(2)条。司法部长要作出此种“认定”，必须存在外显行为。提交签证申请即为促进共谋的外显行为。然而，如果双方仅“同意”为规避移民法而缔结婚姻，但从未实施任何其他促进该协议的行为或举动，则不足以构成。2 申请人未对主任的认定提出有意义的质疑，即受益人为规避移民法而与其前未婚妻订立虚假婚约。她未主张双方关系真实，或除虚假之外的其他性质。3 在其补充简报中，申请人未作进一步解释即主张，“没有证据显示[受益人]在多米尼加共和国时有缔结欺诈婚姻的意图。”该主张无关紧要，因为我们调查的重点是受益人是否意图在美国与其前未婚妻缔结欺诈婚姻，从而最终使其能够调整身份并由此规避移民法。申请人未主张

2 In a different context, we concluded that the term conspiracy, as used in section 101(a)(43)(U) of the Act, is not limited to conspiracies that require the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy by one of the conspirators. Matter of Richardson, 25 I&N Dec. 226, 228 (BIA 2010). This conclusion was based largely on the common law meaning of the term “conspiracy” and an analysis of various State and Federal statutes defining the elements of the crime of conspiracy. Id. at 227–30. But see Quinteros v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 945 F.3d 772, 783–85 (3d Cir. 2019) (holding that an overt act is an element of the generic definition of conspiracy); United States v. Garcia-Santana, 774 F.3d 528, 543 (9th Cir. 2014) (same). Because the statutory language in section 204(c)(2) of the Act is different from the language in section 101(a)(43)(U), we see no tension between the two different approaches. 3 In her appeal brief, the petitioner appears to concede that the beneficiary is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (2018), as an alien who sought to procure a visa by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, as a result of his efforts to obtain a K-1 nonimmigrant visa based on a sham relationship.

2 在不同语境下，我们认定《移民与国籍法》第101(a)(43)(U)条所使用的“共谋”一词不限于要求共谋者之一实施促进共谋的外显行为的共谋。Matter of Richardson, 25 I&N Dec. 226, 228 (BIA 2010)。该结论主要基于“共谋”一词的普通法含义以及对界定共谋罪构成要件的各州和联邦法规的分析。Id. at 227–30。但参见 Quinteros v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 945 F.3d 772, 783–85 (3d Cir. 2019)（认定外显行为是共谋通用定义的构成要件）；United States v. Garcia-Santana, 774 F.3d 528, 543 (9th Cir. 2014)（同）。由于《移民与国籍法》第204(c)(2)条的法定语言与第101(a)(43)(U)条的语言不同，我们认为两种不同方法之间并无冲突。 3 在其上诉简报中，申请人似乎承认，受益人因基于虚假关系寻求获得K-1非移民签证，属于《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(6)(C)(i)条、8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (2018)所指通过欺诈或对重大事实故意虚假陈述寻求获得签证的外国人，因而不可入境。

13

13

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) Interim Decision #3987

引用为 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) 临时决定第3987号

that the beneficiary had no intent to marry his former fiancée in the United States. Nor has she presented or identified any evidence that would establish such a claim. By initially approving the K-1 visa filed on behalf of the beneficiary, the USCIS necessarily determined that he intended to marry his former fiancée in the United States, and that determination was reasonable in light of the parties’ representations. As discussed, the purpose of a K-1 visa is to allow a beneficiary to enter the United States solely to conclude a valid marriage with the fiancé(e) petitioner, and the parties’ bona fide intention to marry is a central element to establishing K-1 visa eligibility. By seeking a K-1 visa and appearing for interviews in support of the visa petition, the beneficiary and his fiancée represented that they had a bona fide intention to marry and were actually willing to conclude a valid marriage within 90 days after the beneficiary’s arrival in the United States. This conduct supported the Director’s decision to approve the K-1 visa petition, because it evidenced their agreement to enter into a legal marriage and their actual intent to do so. Both the filing of the visa petition and their conduct during the interviews constitute overt acts in furtherance of this agreement. The petitioner has not identified what the beneficiary intended to do after obtaining a K-1 visa if it was not to marry his former fiancée. An alien admitted to the United States on a K-1 visa cannot adjust his or her status based on an immigrant visa petition filed by another relative or an employer. Moreover, a K-1 visa holder cannot remain in the United States if he or she does not marry the petitioner within 90 days after admission. In the absence of any evidence to rebut the substantial and probative evidence the Director relied on in making her determination to revoke the approval of the visa petition, we agree that the beneficiary conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. The petitioner argues that the visa petition she filed on behalf of the beneficiary should not have been revoked because section 204(c) of the Act does not apply to actions undertaken to obtain a nonimmigrant visa. We disagree. Section 204(c)(1) of the Act, by its text, is limited to aliens who have been accorded, or sought to be accorded, an immigrant visa. In contrast, section 204(c)(2) is triggered if “the Attorney General has determined that the alien has attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.” Nothing in the language of Act supports the petitioner’s claim that section 204(c)(2) applies only in cases where the beneficiary previously obtained, or sought to obtain, an immigrant visa. Under the plain language of the statute, an alien who has conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws by seeking to secure a K-1 fiancé(e) nonimmigrant visa is subject to the bar under section 204(c)(2) of the Act.

受益人无意在美国与其前未婚妻结婚。她也未提交或指明任何可证明该主张的证据。 通过最初批准以受益人名义提交的K-1签证，USCIS必然认定其意图在美国与其前未婚妻结婚，且鉴于双方的陈述，该认定是合理的。如前所述，K-1签证的目的是允许受益人仅进入美国以与未婚夫（妻）申请人缔结合法婚姻，而双方真实的结婚意图是确立K-1签证资格的核心要素。通过寻求K-1签证并为支持签证申请而出面面谈，受益人和其未婚妻陈述了他们具有真实的结婚意图，并实际愿意在受益人抵达美国后90天内缔结合法婚姻。该行为支持了主任批准K-1签证申请的决定，因为它证明了他们缔结合法婚姻的协议及其实际意图。提交签证申请及他们在面谈期间的行为均构成促进该协议的外显行为。 申请人未指明如果受益人获得K-1签证后并非与其前未婚妻结婚，其意图做什么。以K-1签证获准进入美国的外国人不能基于另一亲属或雇主提交的移民签证申请调整其身份。此外，如果K-1签证持有人在入境后90天内未与申请人结婚，则不能留在美国。在没有任何证据反驳主任在作出撤销签证申请批准的决定时所依据的实质性和证明性证据的情况下，我们同意受益人共谋缔结婚姻以规避移民法。 申请人主张，其以受益人名义提交的签证申请不应被撤销，因为《移民与国籍法》第204(c)条不适用于为获得非移民签证而采取的行为。我们不同意。《移民与国籍法》第204(c)(1)条按其文本仅限于已被给予或寻求被给予移民签证的外国人。相比之下，第204(c)(2)条在“司法部长已认定该外国人曾未遂或共谋缔结婚姻以规避移民法”时被触发。《移民与国籍法》的语言中没有任何内容支持申请人关于第204(c)(2)条仅适用于受益人先前获得或寻求获得移民签证的案件的主张。根据该法规的平义，通过寻求获得K-1未婚夫（妻）非移民签证而共谋缔结婚姻以规避移民法的外国人，受《移民与国籍法》第204(c)(2)条禁令的约束。

14

14

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) Interim Decision #3987

引用为 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) 临时决定第3987号

This case is factually distinguishable from Matter of Christo’s, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015), in which the Administrative Appeals Office determined that an alien who was previously the beneficiary of a Form I-130 based on a nonexistent, fictitious marriage to a United States citizen was not subject to the section 204(c) bar. The Administrative Appeals Office held that an alien who submitted false documents representing a nonexistent or fictitious marriage, but who never either entered into or attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage, may intend to evade the immigration laws but is not, by such act alone, considered to have “entered into” or “attempted or conspired to enter into” a marriage for purposes of section 204(c) of the Act. In that case, the beneficiary never met or married the petitioner and first realized that he was the subject of a marriage-based immigrant visa petition when he appeared for an interview and was asked about the purported marriage. Id. at 541 n.4. Matter of Christo’s, Inc., is a narrow decision that only applies to situations where the beneficiary “never met or married” the petitioner. Id. In contrast, the beneficiary in this case attended two separate interviews in support of the visa petition filed on his behalf, during which he maintained that he was in a bona fide relationship with his fiancée.4 The record contains substantial and probative evidence that the beneficiary previously conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. We therefore conclude that the Director had good and sufficient cause to revoke the approval of the visa petition because its approval is barred by operation of section 204(c) of Act. Accordingly, the petitioner’s appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

本案在事实上与 Matter of Christo’s, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015) 不同，在该案中，行政上诉办公室认定，先前基于与美国公民不存在的、虚构的婚姻而作为I-130表格受益人的外国人不受第204(c)条禁令的约束。行政上诉办公室认定，提交虚假文件以表示不存在或虚构的婚姻，但从未缔结、未遂或共谋缔结婚姻的外国人，可能意图规避移民法，但仅凭该行为，就《移民与国籍法》第204(c)条而言，不被视为“缔结”或“未遂或共谋缔结”婚姻。 在该案中，受益人从未与申请人见面或结婚，并且在其出面面谈并被问及所称婚姻时，才首次意识到自己是婚姻类移民签证申请的对象。Id. at 541 n.4。Matter of Christo’s, Inc. 是一项狭义裁决，仅适用于受益人“从未与申请人见面或结婚”的情形。Id. 相比之下，本案受益人为支持以其名义提交的签证申请参加了两次单独的面谈，期间其坚称自己与未婚妻处于真实关系中。4 记录包含实质性和证明性证据，表明受益人先前共谋缔结婚姻以规避移民法。因此，我们认定主任有正当和充分的理由撤销签证申请的批准，因为其批准因《移民与国籍法》第204(c)条的施行而被禁止。据此，申请人的上诉将被驳回。 命令：上诉驳回。

4 Because we conclude that this case is factually distinguishable from Matter of Christo’s, Inc., we need not address the extent to which decisions of the Administrative Appeals Office are authoritative for purposes of our own adjudications.

4 由于我们认定本案在事实上与 Matter of Christo’s, Inc. 不同，我们无需讨论行政上诉办公室的决定在我们自身裁决中的权威程度。

15

15