Boluk v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11448
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Boluk, a Turkish national, became a conditional permanent resident after marrying a U.S. citizen.
- In 1994 Boluk and Ms. Colangelo submitted a joint I-751 to remove conditions; Colangelo failed to appear for interview.
- Boluk and Colangelo divorced in 2002; Boluk later sought a waiver of the joint filing requirement on the ground of a good faith marriage.
- Immigration judge denied Boluk’s waiver and Boluk appealed to the BIA; the BIA affirmed.
- Boluk challenged (1) allocation of burden, (2) standard for good faith, and (3) how evidence was weighed to show good faith.
- Court reviews the decision for proper burden allocation, correct legal standard, and lawful weighting of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof allocation for waiver | Boluk argues the INA ambiguity requires the alien to bear burden. | Government contends the statute assigns burden to alien when joint petition fails or is not filed. | Burden allocation proper; alien bears burden under the statute. |
| Standard for showing good faith when marriage ends | Boluk contends standard should focus on pre-marriage circumstances, not post-marriage conduct. | Government argues post-marriage conduct and course of relationship after marriage are relevant to good faith. | Proper standard allows consideration of post-marriage conduct as evidence of initial good-faith intent. |
| Legal standard applied to determine good faith | Boluk claims error in requiring evidence of commitment and in evaluating the marriage’s trajectory after wedding. | Government and IJ properly considered evidence of commitment and subsequent conduct consistent with the law. | Agency properly applied the legal standard governing good faith in marriages. |
| Judicial review of weight given to evidence | Boluk argues the judge should have given weight to the travel to Turkey to marry him as significant. | Government argues weighing factual evidence lies within agency’s discretion and is not reviewable as a legal error. | Discretion to weigh evidence is not a question of law; review limited to legal standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Khan v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2007) (jurisdiction to review legal questions in discretionary determinations)
- Yohannes v. Holder, 585 F.3d 402 (8th Cir. 2009) (central issue: whether parties intended to establish a life together at marriage)
- Ibrahimi v. Holder, 566 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 2009) (limits on considering post-marriage conduct in good faith determinations)
- Kuhali v. Reno, 266 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (deference to BIA/agency interpretations under Chevron framework)
- Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing BIA/ IJ decisions when agency adopts reasoning)