Wen Yuan Chan v. Lynch

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 15-2112
WEN YUAN CHAN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Barron, Selya and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
Gregory Romanovsky, with whom Romanovsky Law Offices was on
brief, for petitioner.
Robert Michael Stalzer, Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, with whom Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director,
Office of Immigration Litigation, and Annette M. Wietecha,
Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, were on brief, for
respondent.
December 13, 2016
SELYA, Circuit Judge. This case presents a question of
first impression in this circuit: when United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS) has approved an I-130 "immediate
relative" visa petition based on an alien's marriage to a United
States citizen, does the immigration court, in a parallel removal
proceeding, have jurisdiction to inquire into the bona fides of
the anchoring marriage? Here, the immigration judge (IJ) answered
this question in the affirmative; found the anchoring marriage to
be a sham; denied the alien's request for an adjustment of status;
and entered an order of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) affirmed. After careful consideration, we hold that the
bona fides of the anchoring marriage were properly before the
immigration court and — with that foundation in place — we conclude
that the BIA's decision is supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, we deny the alien's petition for judicial review.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Wen Yuan Chan is a Chinese national. She
entered the United States in February of 2006 on a non-immigrant
visitor's visa. Around the beginning of April, she met her
husband-to-be, Sui Wah Chan,1 who is a citizen of the United States.
Their courtship was brief: within two months, they married. Sui
1Elsewhere in the record, the spelling of the name "Sui Wah
Chan" is inconsistent. The record does not explain these
discrepancies, and we adopt the spelling employed by the IJ.
- 2 -
Wah Chan promptly filed papers with USCIS to adjust the immigration
status of both the petitioner and her son so that they could become
legal permanent residents (LPRs). USCIS refused to recognize the
marriage, however, and rejected her application for adjustment of
status in October of 2007.2
On December 12, 2007, the Department of Homeland
Security instituted removal proceedings against the petitioner
(who, by then, had overstayed her visitor's visa). While those
removal proceedings were pending, Sui Wah Chan again asked USCIS,
by means of an I-130 "immediate relative" visa petition, to
recognize his marriage to the petitioner. USCIS approved this
second I-130 petition in October of 2008. Because removal
proceedings were in progress, however, only the immigration court
(not USCIS) could adjust the petitioner's status. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 245.2(a)(1), 1245.2(a)(1)(i).
On October 28, 2010, the petitioner filed applications
for an adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility in the
removal proceeding. On February 14, 2013 (ironically, Valentine's
Day), the IJ held a hearing to determine the bona fides of the
petitioner's marriage and to pass upon her pending applications.
The IJ found that the petitioner's testimony was not credible and
2 The petitioner's son apparently received an adjustment of
status. The record contains no explanation as to why USCIS treated
the mother and the son differently.
- 3 -
that, based on the evidence presented, her "marriage at the time
of its inception was not bona fide." Since the petitioner's
application for an adjustment of status was premised on the
marriage, the IJ's finding that the marriage was a sham rendered
her ineligible to adjust her status.
Although the inquiry might have ended there, the IJ went
on to find the petitioner inadmissible for two separate reasons.
First, he concluded that she was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) because she was attempting to procure an
immigrant visa through a fraudulent marriage. Second, he concluded
that she was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) due
to her 2008 nolo contendere plea to a Connecticut assault charge
(which the IJ found to be a crime involving moral turpitude).
Next, the IJ refused the petitioner's request for a waiver of
inadmissibility, both as a matter of discretion and because he
found her ineligible for the waiver. Having announced these
rulings, the IJ wrapped up the package by ordering the petitioner's
removal to China.
The petitioner appealed to the BIA, which affirmed
ostensibly "[f]or the reasons discussed by the [IJ]."3 The BIA,
3In a confused passage, the BIA also seems to have affirmed
a decision that the IJ never made (suggesting that the IJ denied
the application for an adjustment of status as a matter of
discretion). In point of fact, it was the waiver of
inadmissibility, not the application for an adjustment of status,
that the IJ denied as a matter of discretion. Given our conclusion
- 4 -
however, added its own gloss. Like the IJ, it concluded that the
petitioner "fail[ed] to establish [that] she entered into the
marriage in good faith," thus rendering her ineligible for the
relief that she sought. In reaching this conclusion, the BIA
explicitly rejected the petitioner's contention that her approved
I-130 petition stripped the IJ of jurisdiction to consider whether
her marriage was bona fide. The BIA further agreed that the
petitioner's sham marriage rendered her inadmissible under 8
U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). In view of this determination, the BIA
saw no need to address the question of whether the petitioner was
inadmissible on account of her criminal record. This timely
petition for judicial review followed.
II. ANALYSIS
"Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ's
decision but adds reasoning of its own, we review the tiered
decisions as a unit." Ramirez-Matias v. Holder, 778 F.3d 322, 325
(1st Cir. 2015). In this case, however, we begin with a threshold
matter: the government's challenge to this court's jurisdiction (a
challenge premised on what it perceives to be the discretionary
nature of the decision below).
that the petitioner is not eligible for an adjustment of status
because of her sham marriage, see text infra, any error in this
regard is manifestly harmless.
- 5 -
We readily acknowledge that, in the immigration context,
"Congress has heavily circumscribed federal courts' jurisdiction
over . . . discretionary decisions." Mele v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 30,
32 (1st Cir. 2015) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)). The
government attempts to wield this principle as a shield, arguing
that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision because the
BIA denied the petitioner's application for an adjustment of status
as a matter of discretion. Such a decision, the government says,
is one that we are forbidden from reviewing. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B).
Whatever application this principle may have in this
case — a matter on which we take no view — we nonetheless have
jurisdiction to review colorable constitutional and legal claims
embedded in such a decision. See Ayeni v. Holder, 617 F.3d 67,
70-71 (1st Cir. 2010). In this instance, the petitioner has
presented a colorable legal question: when USCIS has approved an
I-130 "immediate relative" visa petition based on an alien's
marriage to a United States citizen, does an IJ, in a parallel
removal proceeding, nevertheless have jurisdiction to inquire into
the bona fides of the anchoring marriage before granting an
adjustment of status? This question is colorable because the
answer to it is open. See Pan v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 80, 84 (1st
Cir. 2007) (describing question as "colorable" so long as the
argument advanced has "at the very least, . . . some potential
- 6 -
validity"). Thus, the question provides a hook on which our
jurisdiction can be hung. See DaCosta v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 45,
49 (1st Cir. 2006); Cho v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 96, 98-100 (1st Cir.
2005).
Assured of our jurisdiction, we turn to the BIA's denial
of the petitioner's application for an adjustment of status. An
adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), if granted, "permits
certain noncitizens to become [LPRs]." Akwasi Agyei v. Holder,
729 F.3d 6, 9 (1st Cir. 2013). The adjustment-of-status process
can be initiated by an immediate relative (such as a spouse), see
8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), through the filing of an I-130
petition, see Neang Chea Taing v. Napolitano, 567 F.3d 19, 21 (1st
Cir. 2009). USCIS conducts an investigation, determines whether
the alien is an immediate relative of the sponsor, and approves or
denies the petition. See id. at 21-22. If USCIS approves an I-
130 petition, the alien may then submit an application to adjust
her status either to USCIS (if removal proceedings are not pending)
or to the immigration court (if removal proceedings are pending).
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2(a)(1), 1245.2(a)(1)(i); Neang Chea Taing,
567 F.3d at 21. At a minimum, approval of such an application
requires that the alien be "eligible to receive an immigrant visa,"
be "admissible to the United States for permanent residence," and
have "an immigrant visa . . . immediately available to [her] at
the time [her] application is filed." 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).
- 7 -
Assuming that these threshold requirements are satisfied, the
decisionmaker (whether USCIS or the IJ) must then determine, in
the exercise of discretion, whether to adjust the alien's status.
See id.In the case at hand, it is undisputed that the petitioner
had a visa immediately available to her, thanks to USCIS's approval
of the I-130 petition. Thus, the dispute here reduces to whether
the petitioner is eligible and admissible. In the petitioner's
view, USCIS's approval of the I-130 petition completes the inquiry
into whether her marriage is bona fide, and the IJ may not revisit
that issue. The government demurs, arguing that when removal
proceedings are already in progress, USCIS's evaluation of the
bona fides of the anchoring marriage is at most prima facie
evidence, and that the ultimate resolution of the issue is for the
IJ. This disagreement over the effect of USCIS's determination
presents a purely legal question, and "[w]e review such legal
questions de novo, subject to established principles of agency
deference." DaCosta, 449 F.3d at 49.
The petitioner's assertion — that USCIS's approval of
the I-130 petition divests the immigration court of authority to
revisit the bona fides of the anchoring marriage — does not
withstand scrutiny. When an alien seeks relief from removal, the
law obliges the IJ to "determine whether . . . the testimony is
credible [and] sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant has
- 8 -
satisfied the applicant's burden of proof." 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(4)(B). This obligation extends to the alien's proof of
her eligibility. See id. § 1229a(c)(4)(A)(i).
In carrying out these tasks, the IJ is empowered to
"weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record."
Id. § 1229a(c)(4)(B). If USCIS's approval of an I-130 petition
were accorded preclusive effect, the IJ's hands would be tied and
he would be prevented from fulfilling his statutory
responsibility. See id. Nothing in the text or the structure of
the statutory scheme permits us to truncate the IJ's role as
suggested by the petitioner.
The allocation of responsibilities envisioned by the
petitioner appears even more problematic in light of the
regulations. Pertinently, the regulations prescribe that when an
alien has been placed in removal proceedings, "the [IJ] has
exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate any application for
adjustment of status [that] the alien may file." 8 C.F.R.
§ 1245.2(a)(1)(i); see id. § 245.2(a)(1) (reiterating USCIS's lack
of jurisdiction to adjudicate applications for adjustment of
status with respect to aliens in removal proceedings). Exclusive
jurisdiction — if it means anything at all — must mean the ability
to assess whether the alien is eligible for relief in the first
place. Stripping the IJ of authority to review an essential
threshold element of an alien's application for relief would hollow
- 9 -
out the IJ's exclusive jurisdiction over the adjudication of the
application and, thus, would undercut the regulations.
The case law points in the same direction. Although the
question presented is one of first impression in this circuit, we
do not write on a pristine page. The Ninth Circuit has examined
and expounded upon an identical question. See Agyeman v. INS, 296
F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2002). In that case, the court of appeals
rejected the alien's argument that, once the I-130 "immediate
relative" petition was approved, the immigration court could no
longer receive evidence questioning the bona fides of the anchoring
marriage. See id. at 879 n.2. The court reasoned persuasively
that, although "[t]he approved I-130 [petition] provides prima
facie evidence that the alien is eligible" for an adjustment of
status, the alien must still "prove his eligibility . . . by the
preponderance of the evidence" in the immigration court. Id. So
viewed, an approved I-130 petition is only a piece of evidence to
be introduced before the IJ in the alien's effort to prove
eligibility for an adjustment of status. See id.In an effort to blunt the combined force of the
applicable statutory and regulatory structure and the case law,
the petitioner relies on the BIA's decision in Matter of Arthur,
20 I. & N. Dec. 475 (BIA 1992).4 This reliance is mislaid. For
4The petitioner also relies on the BIA's decision in In re
H-A-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 728 (BIA 1999). That decision, however,
- 10 -
one thing, Matter of Arthur is inapposite. The decision there
addressed the question of whether the BIA would grant a motion to
reopen for consideration of adjustment of status where the
underlying I-130 petition was not yet adjudicated and was based on
a marriage entered into after removal proceedings had commenced.
See 20 I. & N. Dec. at 479. The features that distinguish Matter
of Arthur from the case at hand are obvious. Here — unlike in
Matter of Arthur — no motion to reopen was at issue; the anchoring
marriage was entered into before removal proceedings had
commenced; and the I-130 petition already had been approved.
Trying to fit this case into Matter of Arthur's precedential orbit
is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
There is a second — and even more formidable — reason
why Matter of Arthur does not aid the petitioner's cause. Long
before the events in this case transpired, the BIA explicitly
overruled Matter of Arthur. See In re Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N.
Dec. 253, 257 (BIA 2002); see also Conteh v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d
45, 65 (1st Cir. 2006) (noting the BIA's overruling of Matter of
Arthur). It strains credulity to suggest that an overruled
rests on the decision in Matter of Arthur and furnishes no
independent authority for the proposition that the petitioner
urges.
- 11 -
precedent should, through some mysterious alchemy, be given
controlling weight.5
To say more about this claim of error would be to paint
the lily. We hold that when an alien in removal proceedings
applies for an adjustment of status based on her marriage to a
United States citizen, the IJ has jurisdiction to inquire into the
bona fides of the anchoring marriage even if USCIS already has
approved an I-130 petition to the alien's behoof.6 In such a
situation, the approved I-130 petition is not irrelevant. An
approved I-130 petition from USCIS shows that the alien has a visa
available to her and, thus, paves the way for the IJ to reach the
issues of eligibility for adjustment of status and admissibility.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a); Neang Chea Taing, 567 F.3d at 21. Moreover,
the approved I-130 petition may serve as prima facie evidence of
the authentic character of the petitioner's marriage (an issue
5 To be sure, Velarde-Pacheco was itself overruled in part by
Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2012). That
overruling, however, did not purpose to reinstate the discredited
decision in Matter of Arthur and, so, is of no moment here.
6 In an earlier case, we wrote that "[o]nce classified as an
immediate relative, the alien-spouse becomes eligible to seek an
adjustment of his immigration status . . . ." Naeem v. Gonzales,
469 F.3d 33, 36 n.1 (1st Cir. 2006) (dictum). That statement was
addressed to a hypothetical application for adjustment of status,
filed in the absence of an ongoing removal proceeding. Such an
application would be made to USCIS, not to an immigration court,
and would not implicate the critical question that the petitioner
raises in this case.
- 12 -
relevant to her quest for an adjustment of status). See Agyeman,
296 F.3d at 879 n.2.
Our conclusion that the IJ had jurisdiction to examine
the bona fides of the petitioner's marriage does not end our
odyssey. As a fallback, the petitioner challenges the IJ's finding
that the marriage was a sham. Absent any material error of law —
and we discern none here — we review such a finding only to ensure
that it is supported by substantial evidence. See Nikijuluw v.
Gonzales, 427 F.3d 115, 120 (1st Cir. 2005). This is a "highly
deferential standard," id., under which we cannot disturb the
agency's determination as long as it is "supported by reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (citation
omitted). It follows that such a determination will stand unless
"any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
The alien has the burden of proving the bona fides of an
anchoring marriage by a preponderance of the evidence. See
Agyeman, 296 F.3d at 879 n.2; see also 8 C.F.R. 1240.8(d). A
marriage is bona fide if "at the time that the newlyweds plighted
their troth, [the alien] intended to establish a life with [her]
spouse." McKenzie-Francisco v. Holder, 662 F.3d 584, 587 (1st
Cir. 2011). The record before us contains substantial evidence
- 13 -
from which the IJ reasonably could — and did — find that the
petitioner did not prove such an intent.7
To begin, the couple married after an acquaintance that
spanned no more than two months. Almost immediately thereafter,
the petitioner moved out of state for a lengthy period of time,
leaving her new husband behind. This sequence of events supports
an inference that the petitioner never intended to establish a
life with Sui Wah Chan. See Jing Lin v. Holder, 759 F.3d 110,
112-13 (1st Cir. 2014) (upholding determination that marriage was
not bona fide based on brief courtship and lack of time spent
living together).
The testimony of both the petitioner and Sui Wah Chan
buttresses this inference. The petitioner gave materially
inconsistent answers regarding where she had lived during the
marriage. Importantly, when asked to identify the address that
she shared with Sui Wah Chan, she could not do so, claiming that
she did not "know how to say the name" of the street. Nor was Sui
Wah Chan's testimony helpful to the petitioner's cause. He had
never met her son (though he had successfully sponsored the son's
visa application) and expressed his belief that the son was still
7The petitioner argues that both the IJ and the BIA ignored
this test and focused instead on the petitioner's motive for
entering into the marriage. The record belies this argument: it
makes manifest that the IJ and the BIA laid out the correct test
and proceeded to apply it.
- 14 -
living in China. In fact, the petitioner's son had been residing
in the United States for at least a year, if not more, before the
date on which Sui Wah Chan testified. The couple's lack of
familiarity with the most basic details of their allegedly shared
life provides powerful evidence that they did not intend to
establish a life together. See McKenzie-Francisco, 662 F.3d at
587.
There is more. Both the petitioner and Sui Wah Chan
testified, in effect, that their marriage was an arrangement. Sui
Wah Chan stated: "I wanted to marry her because I wanted someone
. . . to help me . . . . In return, I would help her with her
green card."8 The petitioner confirmed this account. The IJ and
the BIA were entitled to treat their mutual admission that the
petitioner had entered into the marriage to obtain an immigration
benefit as evidence that the marriage was not bona fide. Cf.
Rodriguez v. INS, 204 F.3d 25, 27, 28 (1st Cir. 2000) (considering
an alien's statement that he married only to obtain a green card
"very powerful evidence that the original intent was to use
marriage as a device to evade the immigration laws").
Lastly, the petitioner lacked the sort of documentary
proof that might have led a factfinder reasonably to conclude that
8
"Green card" is a colloquial term for an "employment
authorization card." Arevalo v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.
2003).
- 15 -
she and Sui Wah Chan intended to make a life together. See Reynoso
v. Holder, 711 F.3d 199, 207 (1st Cir. 2013) (upholding a
determination that marriage was not bona fide where the alien's
documentary evidence was "limited" and lacked detail). For
example, despite asserting that she and Sui Wah Chan held a joint
bank account, she presented no corroboration of the existence of
such an account. Her only documentary proof of the sort of
comingling of assets that might have suggested that they intended
to establish a life together was a single year of federal income
tax filings (2011), which showed that she and Sui Wah Chan filed
jointly (as husband and wife) for that one year. The petitioner
did not explain the absence of similar filings for the five earlier
years of the marriage.
In a similar vein, the record is thin with respect to
documentary evidence showing that the couple lived together during
the marriage. In this regard, the petitioner's sole proffer was
a form letter from the Boston Housing Authority that listed her as
a member of Sui Wah Chan's household. The IJ and the BIA could
reasonably find that isolated form letter to constitute no proof.
To sum up, the evidence offered by the petitioner in
support of the bona fides of the anchoring marriage was weak.
Given the paucity of the petitioner's proffer, the agency's "sham
marriage" determination was consistent with the "reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
- 16 -
whole." Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481 (citation omitted).
Surely, this chiaroscuro record does not compel a conclusion
contrary to that reached by the IJ and the BIA.9 We therefore
reject the petitioner's fact-based challenge.
III. CONCLUSION
We need go no further. For the reasons elucidated above,
the petition for judicial review is denied.
So ordered.
9
Given this conclusion, we need not address the petitioner's
remaining claims of error. Those claims relate to the IJ's
findings concerning admissibility and waiver of inadmissibility —
issues rendered moot by the supportable determination that the
petitioner was not eligible for an adjustment of status.
- 17 -