Juraluk Upatcha v. Jefferson Sessions, III
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3135
4th Cir.2017Background
- Petitioner Juraluk Upatcha, a Thai national, entered the U.S. on a fiancé visa in July 2008 and married U.S. citizen Sergio Gonzalez five days later; the couple divorced in February 2009.
- Because the divorce occurred within the two-year conditional residency period, Upatcha could not file the required joint petition to remove conditions and instead applied for a hardship (good-faith marriage) waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4).
- DHS denied the waiver, citing discrepancies between the divorce decree and Upatcha’s evidence; it then terminated her conditional residency and initiated removal proceedings.
- At the IJ hearing, the judge found Upatcha’s testimony not credible and, considering credibility plus other evidence (short courtship, lack of joint finances, no family present at wedding), denied the waiver on the ground she did not enter the marriage in good faith.
- The BIA affirmed, reviewing the IJ’s decision for clear error on factual findings and credibility and concluding no clear error in denying the waiver.
- Upatcha petitioned for review in the Fourth Circuit, arguing the BIA applied the wrong standard of review to the IJ’s ultimate legal conclusion that the credited evidence did not satisfy the statutory good-faith standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA applied proper standard to IJ’s ultimate conclusion that evidence did not meet § 1186a(c)(4)(B) good-faith marriage standard | Upatcha: ultimate determination is a mixed question of law and fact; BIA must review the legal application de novo | Gov: BIA appropriately applied clear-error review because IJ denial rested solely on adverse credibility findings | Court: Mixed question — factual findings (including credibility) reviewed for clear error; ultimate legal conclusion (application of good-faith standard to credited facts) reviewed de novo; remand for BIA to apply de novo review |
| Whether IJ’s adverse credibility finding alone could support denial without considering corroborating evidence | Upatcha: IJ must consider corroborating documentary and other evidence, not deny solely on incredible testimony | Gov: IJ’s credibility finding justified denial; thus clear-error review suffices | Court: IJ and BIA must consider corroborating evidence; denying relief solely on incredible testimony without addressing corroboration is improper; supports need for BIA’s de novo legal review |
Key Cases Cited
- Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing factual findings from legal application; ultimate conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631 (4th Cir. 2008) (application of legal standard to facts is reviewed de novo)
- Cho v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) (courts review whether credited evidence meets good-faith marriage standard as legal question)
- Ibrahimi v. Holder, 566 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding application of law to facts in good-faith-marriage determinations is a legal question)
- Kourouma v. Holder, 588 F.3d 234 (4th Cir. 2009) (agency may not deny relief solely on incredible testimony without considering corroborating evidence)