Vladimirov v. Lynch
805 F.3d 955
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Vladimirov, a Bulgarian national, entered the U.S. in 1996 on a visitor visa and remained. He married U.S. citizen Valentina Bakhrakh in 2005 and filed an I-485 to adjust status based on her I-130.
- USCIS interviews (March and May 2006) revealed numerous conflicting statements by the couple about basic aspects of their shared life, prompting a site visit.
- During the site visit, Officer Gibson reported that Vladimirov admitted the marriage was not valid and that many items in the home belonged to his former wife; Bakhrakh subsequently withdrew the I-130.
- USCIS denied the I-485, issued a Notice to Appear charging marriage fraud and willful misrepresentation, and removal proceedings followed; the IJ and then the BIA ordered removal to Bulgaria.
- On appeal to the Tenth Circuit Vladimirov argued lack of adequate notice, insufficient evidence, and due-process violations from admission of agency reports (Form I-213) and lack of cross-examination of Officer Gibson; he also alleged coercion of Bakhrakh’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice of charges | Vladimirov: NTA did not adequately inform him of conduct forming basis for fraud/misrepresentation. | Government: NTA specifically charged sham marriage and filing I-485 based on it. | NTA provided adequate notice; charge of marriage fraud tied to willful misrepresentation was sufficient. |
| Sufficiency of evidence / removability | Vladimirov: Evidence (statements, reports) insufficient; couple’s statements did not materially conflict; fraud at inception not shown. | Government: Discrepant sworn statements, site-visit admissions, and I-130 withdrawal support finding of sham marriage and willful misrepresentation. | Substantial evidence supports BIA: discrepancies, Vladimirov’s admission, and I-130 withdrawal meet clear-and-convincing standard. |
| Due process / right to confront Officer Gibson | Vladimirov: Denied opportunity to cross-examine Officer Gibson; her absent testimony prejudiced him. | Government: Form I-213 and reports are regular administrative records; cross-examination not automatically required; alien had opportunity to challenge. | No due-process violation: cross-examination right is not absolute; absence legitimate and alien failed to show prejudice. |
| Admissibility/reliability of Form I-213 and alleged coercion | Vladimirov: Form I-213 was "triple hearsay," prepared for litigation and unreliable; Bakhrakh’s withdrawal was coerced. | Government: Form I-213 is presumptively reliable administrative record; hearsay admissible if probative and fundamentally fair; no evidence of coercion. | Form I-213 properly considered (presumptively reliable and probative); Vladimirov did not rebut reliability or prove coercion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (agency findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Jimenez-Guzman v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1294 (standard for reviewing evidence sufficiency in removal proceedings)
- Sarr v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 783 (agency fact findings conclusive unless compelled otherwise)
- Ibrahimi v. Holder, 566 F.3d 758 (test for bona fide marriage—intent to establish life together)
- Barrera-Quintero v. Holder, 699 F.3d 1239 (due-process right to examine evidence and cross-examine in removal hearings)
- Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228 (hearsay admissible in immigration proceedings if reliable)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (administrative proceedings do not require criminal-trial confrontation protections)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (Due Process Clause protects aliens but process differs by context)