Immigration precedents

A U.S. citizen petitioner filed an immediate relative visa petition for his spouse; the petitioner died before adjudication, and the district director denied the petition. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that under 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(b)(5) and Part 204 its jurisdiction over visa petition decisions is limited to appeals by the petitioner, so the beneficiary's appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and could not be accepted by certification.

A U.S. citizen's approved sibling preference petition was revoked after the petitioner died, and the beneficiary appealed. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that its appellate jurisdiction is limited by 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(b) and that 8 C.F.R. § 205.1 provides no appellate review for automatic revocations, so it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The obligor posted a $5,000 public charge bond for an alien who had received Supplemental Security Income since 1981. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that receipt of SSI constitutes receipt of public assistance and is sufficient cause to breach a public charge bond even without a demand for repayment, and that the obligor's ignorance that SSI receipt could breach the bond does not make the violation insubstantial.

A Mexican couple, after being denied suspension of deportation, moved to reopen based on seven years' presence accrued during their appeals and the birth of a second child. The Supreme Court held that the Attorney General retains discretion to deny reopening even if a prima facie case for suspension is shown, particularly where the seven years accrued through meritless appeals and the respondents showed flagrant disregard for the immigration laws and willfully failed to depart voluntarily.

The applicant, found excludable based on a Hong Kong conviction involving moral turpitude, sought a section 212(h) waiver, asserting extreme hardship to her husband from separation and financial burden. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that common consequences of the bar, such as separation and financial difficulties, are insufficient by themselves to establish extreme hardship and must be combined with more extreme impacts, with the burden on the applicant; the claimed hardships were refuted by the record, and the appeal was dismissed.

In this case, a real estate partnership sought preference status for a beneficiary, but the business ceased operations after labor certification and later partnerships using the same trade name were formed by different individuals. The Commissioner held that neither a sole proprietorship nor a partnership is a legal entity separate from its owners, and that the actual partnership existing when the job offer was made and certified must continue and intend to employ the beneficiary as certified.

The petitioner submitted a valid U.S. passport issued to him as a U.S. citizen in support of a visa petition for his Mexican spouse, but the district director denied it based on suspicion that the passport rested on a previously rejected delayed birth certificate. The Board of Immigration Appeals held under 22 U.S.C. § 2705 that, unless void on its face, a valid U.S. passport is not subject to collateral attack in administrative immigration proceedings and constitutes conclusive proof of U.S. citizenship, and remanded the record.

An insurance company posted a $5,000 delivery bond for a Philippine national who failed to surrender to immigration authorities on the demanded date and instead filed a habeas corpus petition that day. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that the habeas petition did not relieve the obligor of the duty to surrender the alien and that the failure to do so was a substantial violation of the bond conditions, dismissing the appeal.

A U.S. citizen filed an immediate relative petition for his Dominican spouse, withdrew the first petition after admitting the marriage was primarily to obtain an immigration benefit, and then filed a second petition. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that a marriage entered into primarily to circumvent immigration laws confers no immigration benefit and that, after such a withdrawal and admission, the petitioner must explain the withdrawal and submit evidence of bona fides at filing, bearing a heavy burden.

A lawful permanent resident filed a visa petition for her daughter as an unmarried child, but the daughter admitted that she divorced solely to obtain immigration benefits and continued to live with, file taxes with, and jointly own property with her former husband in an apparent marital relationship. The Board of Immigration Appeals held the divorce to be a sham not recognized for immigration purposes and affirmed the District Director's denial of the petition.

A Swiss firm's U.S. branch sought L-1 intracompany transferee classification for an employee who had worked for the firm only in the United States as a B-1 nonimmigrant and had never been employed abroad by the company or its affiliate. The Regional Commissioner dismissed the appeal, holding that the beneficiary did not meet the statutory one-year continuous employment requirement and that his B-1 employment in the United States could not count toward that year.

The District Director denied a preference visa petition for an adopted child because the adoption occurred after the beneficiary turned 14. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that a later statutory increase of the adoption age limit from 14 to 16 could not retroactively establish eligibility or confer a priority date to which the beneficiary was not entitled when the petition was filed.