Immigration precedents

A U.S. citizen petitioned for a nonquota visa for his Japanese first cousin; both were Illinois residents but married in Colorado, where such marriages were lawful, while Illinois prohibited first-cousin marriages and had a marriage-evasion statute. The Board of Immigration Appeals held the marriage valid in Illinois because the evidence showed the parties did not travel to Colorado with the primary purpose of evading Illinois law and Illinois no longer criminalized first-cousin cohabitation, so no strong public policy was violated; the visa petition was approved.

A Mexican national obtained an immigrant visa by submitting a forged employment offer and was charged with deportability for visa fraud and lack of a valid visa. The Attorney General held that the materiality finding in the criminal conviction did not control the deportation proceeding and that the misrepresentation was not material because further inquiry would not have led to a proper determination of excludability, so the visa was not invalidated.

The Board of Immigration Appeals held that a Belgian permanent resident convicted of interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, a crime involving moral turpitude, was deportable and did not merit discretionary adjustment of status under section 245. Although section 245 does not require statutory good moral character, the Board held that good moral character is a factor that must be considered in exercising discretion and must exist for a reasonable period; the recent conviction, continuing probation, short marriage, and unresolved problems warranted denial.

A Greek national admitted as a C-1 transit alien, who was in fact destined to join a vessel as a crewman, later married a U.S. citizen and applied for adjustment of status under section 245. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the denial, holding that he was an alien destined to join a vessel and thus excluded from section 245 relief by 8 C.F.R. 245.1.

A U.S. citizen petitioner sought nonquota status for a Jordanian beneficiary; their polygamous marriage was valid under Jordanian law, and the beneficiary later divorced his first wife. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that the marriage, though valid where celebrated, is repugnant to U.S. public policy against polygamy and is not recognized as a valid marriage for immigration purposes, and the later divorce does not change that result.

A native and citizen of China claimed to be the adoptive child of a U.S. citizen, was admitted in 1947 as a U.S. citizen, and reentered in 1957 on a false citizenship claim. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that he was not legally adopted under the law of China or California, was not a 'child' within INA section 101(b)(1)(E), and could not qualify for the presumption of lawful admission for permanent residence under 8 CFR 101.1(j)(1), dismissing his appeal.

The applicant purchased a Form I-151 alien registration receipt card from a private individual with no official connection to the U.S. Government and used it to enter the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that this did not constitute procuring documentation by fraud under the first clause of section 212(a)(19), because that clause requires inducing an authorized U.S. Government official to issue a document through material misrepresentations.

An Italian crewman who overstayed sought voluntary departure, and the special inquiry officer found him barred by section 101(f)(6) because he falsely claimed lawful residence in a statement to an immigration officer. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that his voluntary and timely retraction before exposure of the false statement meant it was not false testimony barring good moral character, though voluntary departure was denied as a matter of discretion.

The applicant was erroneously admitted as a U.S. citizen upon arrival as a wartime evacuee, without having willfully made a false claim to citizenship. The Board held that she satisfied the 'inspected and admitted' requirement under amended section 245 and was eligible for adjustment of status; the contrary rule applies where the citizenship claim was willful and fraudulent.

The applicant and her two minor children, natives of the Philippines, sought adjustment of status under section 245 and nonquota status based on the applicant's California marriage to a U.S. citizen after a Mexican 'mail order' divorce. The decision held that California courts ordinarily do not recognize in absentia Mexican divorces, so the applicant was not legally free to marry; the marriage was invalid for immigration purposes, the children could not qualify as stepchildren, and the appeal was dismissed.

A Florida statute made it a misdemeanor to obtain advances by a promise to labor with intent to defraud and made failure to perform prima facie evidence of fraudulent intent; Pollock pleaded guilty under it and was fined. The Supreme Court held the statute violated the Thirteenth Amendment and the federal Antipeonage Act because a state may not make failure to labor in discharge of a debt any part of a crime or directly or indirectly command involuntary servitude, and reversed the judgment.

A lawful permanent resident petitioned for his Ghanaian-born son as an unmarried child, claiming the son was legitimate because of a customary marriage in Ghana, but offered no evidence that such a marriage met the required elements. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that foreign law is a question of fact that the petitioner must prove, that Ghanaian customary marriage requires mutual consent, consent of both families, and consummation by cohabitation, and dismissed the appeal for failure to meet the burden of proof.