Matter of Soriano

The United States citizen petitioner applied for immediate rela- tive status for the beneficiary as her husband under section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b) (1982). In a decision dated September 8, 1986, the district director denied the petition. The record will be remanded.

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)，为其丈夫受益人申请即时亲属身份。在1986年9月8日的决定中，地区主任拒绝了该申请。记录将被发回。

The petitioner is 45 years old. The beneficiary is a 38-year-old native and citizen of the Philippines. The parties were married on October 2, 1985. The petitioner filed a visa petition on behalf of the beneficiary on December 2, 1985. On March 14, 1986, the district director denied the visa petition. He concluded that the marriage was a sham, based on the nature and magnitude of the inconsistencies in the parties' statements at their separate interviews on February 12, 1986, the petitioner's in- ability to explain them, and the inadequacy of the evidence submit- ted by the petitioner. The petitioner did not appeal from the district director's March 14, 1986, decision. On August 7, 1986, she filed a second visa peti- tion on. behalf of the beneficiary as her husband. Attached to the visa petition were undated affidavits of her sons, ages 16 and 17, concerning the bona fides of the marriage. The district director denied the second visa petition on Septem- ber 8, 1986, on the basis of the conclusions regarding the validity of the marriage expressed in his March 14, 1986, decision, stating also that the petitioner had not submitted any evidence indicating that her marriage was valid. The petitioner appealed. On October 20, 1986, the district director wrote to counsel for the petitioner, noting that he had failed to file a brief on appeal and advising him that he had 30 days "to submit additional evidence in support of your appeal.' On appeal, the petitioner, who maintains that the marriage is bona fide, submitted additional evidence.' 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 Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1988); Matter of McKee, 17 I&N Dec. 332 (BIA 1980); see also, e.g, Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (1953); Chan v. Bell, 464 F. Supp. 125 (D.D.C. 1978); McLat v. Longo, 412 F. Supp. 1021 (a.V.I. 1976); Matter of Pereira, 19 I&N Dec. 169 (BIA 1984); 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 bride and groom intended to establish a life together at the time they were married. See, e.g., Bu Roe v. INS, 771 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1985); Bark v. INS, 511 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1975); Matter of Laureano, supra; Matter of McKee, supra. The conduct of the parties before and after marriage is relevant to their intent at the time of marriage. Lutwak v. United States,

申请人45岁。受益人是38岁的菲律宾本土公民。双方于1985年10月2日结婚。申请人于1985年12月2日代表受益人提交了签证申请。 1986年3月14日，地区主任拒绝了签证申请。他得出结论认为婚姻是虚假的，依据是双方在1986年2月12日分别面谈时陈述的不一致的性质和程度、申请人无法解释这些不一致，以及申请人提交的证据不足。 申请人未对地区主任1986年3月14日的决定提出上诉。1986年8月7日，她代表受益人作为其丈夫提交了第二份签证申请。签证申请附有其16岁和17岁儿子的未注明日期的宣誓书，涉及婚姻的真实性。 地区主任于1986年9月8日拒绝了第二份签证申请，依据是其1986年3月14日决定中关于婚姻有效性的结论，并指出申请人未提交任何表明其婚姻有效的证据。申请人提出上诉。1986年10月20日，地区主任致函申请人的律师，指出他未提交上诉简报，并告知他有30天时间“提交支持您上诉的补充证据”。 在上诉中，主张婚姻真实的申请人提交了补充证据。¹ 为规避移民法为主要目的而缔结的婚姻，称为欺诈性或虚假婚姻，未被认可为使外籍配偶能够获得移民利益。Laureano案，19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1988)；McKee案，17 I&N Dec. 332 (BIA 1980)；另见，例如，Lutwak v. United States，344 U.S. 604 (1953)；Chan v. Bell，464 F. Supp. 125 (D.D.C. 1978)；McLat v. Longo，412 F. Supp. 1021 (a.V.I. 1976)；Pereira案，19 I&N Dec. 169 (BIA 1984)；M-案，8 I&N Dec. 217 (BIA 1958)。一般参见Johl v. United states，370 F.2d 174 (9th Cir. 1966)。核心问题是新娘和新郎在结婚时是否打算共同建立生活。参见，例如，Bu Roe v. INS，771 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1985)；Bark v. INS，511 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1975)；Laureano案，同上；McKee案，同上。 双方婚前和婚后的行为与其结婚时的意图相关。Lutwak v. United States，

supra; Garcia-efaramillo v. INS, 604 F.2d 1236 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 828 (1980); Bark v. INS, supra. Where there is reason to doubt the validity of the marital relationship, the peti- tioner must present evidence to show that the marriage was not entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. Such evidence could take many forms, including, but not limited to, proof that the beneficiary has been listed as the petitioner'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. Matter of Laureano, supra; 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). Where a visa petition has once been denied based on a finding that the marriage was entered into solely to bestow an immigration benefit, the petitioner bears a heavy burden of proof with respect to any subsequently filed visa petition involving the same beneficiary. cf. Matter of Laureano, supra. Where a visa petition is denied based on a deficiency of proof, the petitioner was not put on notice of the deficiency and given a reasonable opportunity to address it before the denial, and the peti- tioner proffers additional evidence addressing the deficiency with the appeal, then in the ordinary course we will remand the record to allow the district or Regional Service Center director to consider and address the new evidence. A petitioner may be put on notice of evidentiary requirements by various means, such as a requirement in the regulations that a particular document be submitted with the visa petition; a notice of intent to deny, letter, or form noting the deficiency or requesting additional evidence; or an oral state- ment at an interview that additional evidence is required. Where, however, the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial, we will not consider evidence submitted on appeal for any purpose. Rather, we will adjudicate the appeal based on the record of proceedings before the district or Regional Service Center director. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). In such a case, if the petitioner desires further consider- ation, he or she must file a new visa petition. The district director first pointed out the deficiencies of proof with respect to the second visa petition when he denied that peti- tion, and he suggested thereafter that the petitioner submit new evidence. We note also that the district director was in error in stating that the petitioner had submitted no evidence with the

同上；Garcia-efaramillo v. INS，604 F.2d 1236 (9th Cir. 1979)，cert. denied，449 U.S. 828 (1980)；Bark v. INS，同上。若有理由怀疑婚姻关系的有效性，申请人必须提供证据表明婚姻并非为规避移民法而缔结。此类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、共同居住和经历的证言或其他证据。Laureano案，同上；Phillis案，15 I&N Dec. 385 (BIA 1975)。 在签证申请程序中，申请人负有证明所寻求利益资格的责任。Brantigan案，11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966)。若签证申请曾因认定婚姻仅为授予移民利益而缔结被拒，则申请人对任何随后提交的涉及同一受益人的签证申请负有沉重的举证责任。参见Laureano案，同上。 若签证申请因证据不足被拒，而申请人此前未被通知该缺陷且未获得合理机会在拒绝前予以解决，且申请人在上诉时提出解决该缺陷的补充证据，则通常我们将发回记录，以便地区或区域服务中心主任考虑和处理新证据。可以通过各种方式使申请人注意到证据要求，例如法规要求在签证申请中提交特定文件；意图拒绝通知、信函或表格指出缺陷或要求补充证据；或在面谈中口头声明需要补充证据。然而，若申请人已被通知所需证据并在拒绝前获得合理机会将其纳入记录，则我们将不会出于任何目的考虑上诉时提交的证据。相反，我们将基于地区或区域服务中心主任面前的程序记录裁决上诉。参见Obaigbena案，19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988)。在此类案件中，若申请人希望进一步考虑，他或她必须提交新的签证申请。 地区主任在拒绝第二份签证申请时首次指出了证据缺陷，此后他建议申请人提交新证据。我们还注意到，地区主任错误地指出申请人未随

second visa petition. The affidavits of the petitioner's children were evidence, albeit of weak probative value. Accordingly, we shall remand this matter to the district director so that he may consider the evidence submitted on appeal, bearing in mind the petitioner's heavy burden of proof. ORDER: The record is remanded to the district director for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and the entry of a new decision.

第二份签证申请提交任何证据。申请人子女的宣誓书是证据，尽管证明价值较弱。 因此，我们将把此事项发回地区主任，以便他考虑上诉时提交的证据，同时铭记申请人的沉重举证责任。 命令：记录发回地区主任，以按照上述意见进行进一步程序并作出新决定。