Matter of Phillis

Decided by Board July 7, 1975

由委员会于1975年7月7日裁定

The United States citizen petitioner applied for immediatd relative status for the beneficiary as his spouse under section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In a decision dated January 27, 1975, the district director denied the petition. The petitioner has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be dismissed. On the application submitted September 12, 1974, and in an interview conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service on November 13, 1974, the petitioner stated that he and the beneficiary had resided together since their marriage on May 17, 1974. However, in another interview conducted on January 15, 1975, the petitioner admitted that he and the beneficiary had never resided together. The petitioner then stated that his fear of telling his parents of his marriage was the reason for their separate living arrangenents, and counsel again offers this explanation on appeal. Counsel also claims on the notice of appeal that

美国公民申请人依据《移民与国籍法》第201(b)条，以配偶身份为受益人申请近亲属身份。在1975年1月27日的决定中，地区主任拒绝了该申请。申请人已对该决定提出上诉。上诉将被驳回。 在1974年9月12日提交的申请中，以及在移民与归化局于1974年11月13日进行的一次面谈中，申请人陈述称，自1974年5月17日结婚以来，他与受益人一直共同居住。然而，在1975年1月15日进行的另一次面谈中，申请人承认他与受益人从未共同居住。申请人随后表示，他害怕告诉父母自己结婚一事，这是他们分开居住的原因，律师在上诉中再次提出这一解释。律师还在上诉通知中声称，

the petitioner lived with the beneficiary "for a substantial period of time," but he concedei that the petitioner "did not stay overnight" with the beneficiary. In the January 15, 1975 interview, the petitioner also related that he had never listed the beneficiary as his wife on any document nor had he contributed toward her support. He admitted that the beneficiary had instituted a divorce action which she later terminated. In that same interview, the petitioner denied that he was offered payment for marrying the beneficiary, and he further denied that he married her in order to assist her to obtain an immigrant visa. He also stated that he had no knowledge of the beneficiary's immigration status until after the marriage. He claimed that he intended to enter into a "valid" marriage with the beneficiary and testified that the marriage was consummated. On appeal, counsel declares that, although the peti- tioner is separated from the beneficiary, they continue to see each other, and there exists a "reasonable possibility" that they will live together as husband and wife in the future. The record also contains the testimony of the beneficiary which was given in an interview with an Immigration Examiner on November 13, 1974. She asserted that she and the petitioner had lived together as husband and wife since the day of their marriage. She further claimed that she had advised the petitioner of her immigration status prior to their marriage_ According to the petitioner's testimony, the date of this interview fell within the period during which the beneficiary was seek- ing a divorce. An alien spouse of a United States citizen can acquire lawful perma- nent resident status . without regard to numerical limitations under section 201(b) of the Act. This provision was included in the Act in order to prevent fle separation of families and preserve the family unit. H. Rept. No. 1865, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess. 1680 (1952). Although a marriage may be given legal effect in the United States or abroad, we are not required to recognize it for the purpose of conferring immigration benefits where the marriage was entered into for the pur- pose of evad.ng the immigration laws. Matter of M, 8 I. & N. Dec. 217 (BIA 1958). See Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (1953); Johl v. United States, 370 F.2d 174 (1966). The burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefits sought. Matter of Brantigan, 11 I. & N. Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner, therefore, must present evidence to support the existence of the marriage, i.e., the marriage certificate and proof of termination of any prior marriages. 8 CFR 204.2(c)(2). Further, where there is reason to doubt the validity of the marital relationship, he must present evi- dence to show that it was not entered into the primary purpose of evading the immigration laws.

申请人“在相当长的一段时间内”与受益人共同居住，但他承认申请人“没有”与受益人“过夜”。 在1975年1月15日的面谈中，申请人还陈述称，他从未在任何文件上将受益人列为其妻子，也未为其提供生活费用。他承认受益人曾提起离婚诉讼，但后来终止了该诉讼。 在同一次面谈中，申请人否认有人向他提供报酬以使其与受益人结婚，并进一步否认他与受益人结婚是为了帮助她获得移民签证。他还表示，他在结婚之前对受益人的移民身份一无所知。他声称他打算与受益人缔结“有效”婚姻，并作证称该婚姻已圆房。在上诉中，律师声明，尽管申请人与受益人分居，但他们仍继续见面，并且存在他们将来作为夫妻共同生活的“合理可能性”。 记录中还包含受益人的证言，该证言是在1974年11月13日与移民审查员面谈时作出的。她声称，自结婚之日起，她与申请人一直以夫妻身份共同居住。她还声称，她在结婚前已将其移民身份告知申请人。根据申请人的证言，此次面谈的日期落在受益人寻求离婚的期间内。 美国公民的外籍配偶可以依据该法第201(b)条获得合法永久居民身份，不受名额限制。该条款被纳入该法是为了防止家庭分离并维护家庭单元。H. Rept. No. 1865, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess. 1680 (1952)。 尽管婚姻可以在美国或国外被赋予法律效力，但在婚姻是为规避移民法而缔结的情况下，我们无需为授予移民利益之目的而承认该婚姻。Matter of M, 8 I. & N. Dec. 217 (BIA 1958)。参见 Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (1953)；Johl v. United States, 370 F.2d 174 (1966)。 申请人负有证明其符合所寻求利益之资格的责任。Matter of Brantigan, 11 I. & N. Dec. 493 (BIA 1966)。因此，申请人必须提交证据以支持婚姻的存在，即结婚证书以及任何先前婚姻终止的证明。8 CFR 204.2(c)(2)。此外，在有理由怀疑婚姻关系有效性的情况下，他必须提交证据表明该婚姻并非以规避移民法为主要目的而缔结。

That evidence could take many forms, including, but not limited to, proof that the beneficiary has been listed as the petitioner's spouse on any insurance policies, property leases, income tax forms, or bank accounts; and testimony or other evidence regarding courtship, wedding ceremony, shared residence and experiences. The conduct of the parties after marriage is relevant to their intent at the time of marriage. Lutwak v. United States, supra. Where the parties have never lived together, the amount of evidence required to establish that the mar- riage was not entered into for the fraudulent purpose of evading the immigration laws may be considerable. The record in the present case contains evidence from which it may reasonably be inferred that the parties entered into the marriage for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits. The following evidence is particularly significant: the contradictions in the petitioner's statement regarding the living arrangements of the parties; the inconsistencies between the statements of the petitioner and the beneficiary, specifi- cally, those made with reference to their living arrangements and the date the petitioner learned of the beneficiary's immigration status; the fact that the interview with the beneficiary was conducted at a time when the beneficiary was in the process of filing a divorce. We find that the parties have never lived together in a husband and wife relation- ship. The evidence submitted by the petitioner, principally in the form of his testimony denying fraud, is insufficient to overcome the inference of fraud. We accordingly find that the petitioner has not sustained his burden under Matter of Brantigan, supra. We note that the record supports the district director's statement that the petitioner "never lived with the beneficiary as husband and wife" and "failed to establish any clear intent to live with the beneficiary as man and wife." However, the district director does not indicate the proper basis for the denial in his decision. The evidence in the record leads us to conclude that the marriage was fraudulently entered into in order to confer immigration benefits upon the beneficiary. The petition will be denied because the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish that this was a valid marriage from its inception. This decision is without prejudice to submission of a new visa petition. However, it should be supported by evidence which establishes the existence of a valid marriage, recognizable under the immigration laws. The appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

该证据可以采取多种形式，包括但不限于：证明受益人已在任何保险单、财产租约、所得税表格或银行账户上被列为申请人配偶的证据；以及关于恋爱过程、婚礼仪式、共同居住和共同经历的证言或其他证据。双方婚后的行为与其结婚时的意图相关。Lutwak v. United States, supra。在双方当事人从未共同居住的情况下，证明该婚姻并非为规避移民法之欺诈目的而缔结所需的证据数量可能相当大。 本案记录中包含的证据可以合理推断出双方当事人缔结婚姻的目的是为了获得移民利益。以下证据尤为重要：申请人关于双方居住安排的陈述存在矛盾；申请人与受益人的陈述之间存在不一致，具体而言，是关于其居住安排以及申请人得知受益人移民身份日期的陈述；与受益人的面谈是在受益人正在办理离婚期间进行的这一事实。我们认定双方当事人从未以夫妻关系共同居住。申请人提交的证据，主要是其否认欺诈的证言，不足以推翻欺诈的推断。因此，我们认定申请人未能履行其在 Matter of Brantigan, supra 案下的举证责任。 我们注意到，记录支持地区主任的陈述，即申请人“从未与受益人作为夫妻共同生活”，且“未能确立任何与受益人作为夫妻共同生活的明确意图”。然而，地区主任在其决定中并未指明拒绝申请的适当依据。记录中的证据使我们得出结论，该婚姻是为赋予受益人移民利益而欺诈性缔结的。申请将被拒绝，因为申请人未能提交充分证据证明该婚姻自始有效。 本决定不影响提交新的签证申请。但该申请应附有证据，证明存在根据移民法可承认的有效婚姻。 上诉将被驳回。 命令：上诉被驳回。