Agyei v. Holder
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18186
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Agyei, a Ghanaian national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1984 and seeks relief via adjustment of status or cancellation of removal.
- His adjustment path relies on an I-130 petition through either his brother Opoku or his wife Raudys, filed before April 30, 2001 to grandfather the petition.
- Raudys's I-130 petition was denied by USCIS in 2006 after inconsistent statements and a finding of a sham marriage with Agyei.
- Agyei and Raudys initially pursued cancellation based on hardship to Raudys or their child, but the IJ and later BIA focus on misrepresentations in the marriage proceedings.
- In 2010–2011, the IJ denied relief, the BIA dismissed, then granted a motion to reopen/reconsider; the current petition for review challenges the misrepresentation finding and related due process issues.
- The agency concluded Agyei made material misrepresentations to immigration officials, rendering him ineligible for adjustment and non-LPR cancellation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misrepresentation finding bars relief | Agyei argues misrepresentations were not material or intended to obtain benefits. | Agency found numerous inconsistencies showing intent to misrepresent marriage to obtain benefits. | Agency finding supported; misrepresentation deemed material. |
| Whether Agyei is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) | Relief is still possible despite denials of Raudys's I-130 petition. | Fraud in pursuing immigration benefits bars admissibility regardless of ultimate petition denial. | Admissibility barred; fraud precludes adjustment. |
| Whether good moral character for cancellation was properly evaluated | Affidavits and context negate fraudulent intent for purposes of good moral character. | False testimony and misrepresentation require denial of good moral character. | False testimony supported denial of good moral character; cancellation denied. |
| Whether due process or ineffective assistance arguments warrant reopening/reconsideration | IJ deprived him of chance to contest misrepresentation; counsel was ineffective. | Arguments untimely or fail to show prejudice; no basis to alter outcome. | Abandoned or unpersuasive; cannot overcome misrepresentation finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Estrada, 26 I. & N. Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) (grandfathering eligibility under 1255(i))
- Taing v. Napolitano, 567 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2009) (guides USCIS review of family-based petitions and relation verification)
- Luevano v. Holder, 660 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2011) (role of I-130 petition in adjustment proceedings)
- Reynoso v. Holder, 711 F.3d 199 (1st Cir. 2013) (de novo review of nondiscretionary bars to good moral character)
- Restrepo v. Holder, 676 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012) (false testimony and good moral character analysis)
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (Supreme Court) (false testimony scope and intent for immigration benefits)
- Ymeri v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2004) (fraud finding as factual inquiry in immigration context)
- Monter v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 546 (2d Cir. 2005) (factors in evaluating bona fide marriage and fraud in applications)
- In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001) (importance of alternative relief considerations in hardship cases)
- Arias-Valencia v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 428 (1st Cir. 2008) (standards for reconsideration in immigration appeals)