Wen Yuan Chan v. Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22096
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Wen Yuan Chan, a Chinese national, entered the U.S. on a visitor visa in 2006, married U.S. citizen Sui Wah Chan after a brief courtship, and overstayed her visa.
- Sui Wah Chan filed I-130 petitions for petitioner and her son; USCIS initially rejected the petitioner’s adjustment application (2007) but later approved a second I-130 (2008).
- DHS placed petitioner in removal proceedings; because proceedings were pending, the immigration judge (IJ) had exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate any adjustment application.
- At an IJ hearing (2013), the IJ found the marriage was not bona fide, denied adjustment of status, found petitioner inadmissible (including for marriage fraud), denied a waiver, and ordered removal; the BIA affirmed.
- Petitioner argued USCIS’s approved I-130 precluded the IJ from relitigating the bona fides of the marriage; the agency and government contended the IJ could reassess eligibility and admissibility despite USCIS approval.
- The First Circuit reviewed (1) whether the IJ had jurisdiction to inquire into the marriage’s bona fides despite an approved I-130 and (2) whether the sham-marriage finding was supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an IJ in removal proceedings may revisit the bona fides of a marriage after USCIS approved an I-130 | USCIS approval of the I-130 conclusively establishes the marriage’s bona fides and strips the IJ of authority to relitigate that issue | An approved I-130 is prima facie evidence only; when removal proceedings are pending the IJ has exclusive jurisdiction to determine eligibility and may examine bona fides | The IJ may inquire into the bona fides; USCIS approval is prima facie evidence but not preclusive |
| Whether the agency’s finding that the marriage was a sham is supported by substantial evidence | The marriage was bona fide; petitioner contested IJ credibility findings and documentary insufficiency | IJ/BIA relied on brief courtship, long separations, inconsistent testimony, admissions of an immigration arrangement, and weak corroborating documents | The sham-marriage finding is supported by substantial evidence and survives deferential review |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision (despite discretionary-denial arguments) | Petitioner asserted colorable legal claim that merits judicial review | Government argued discretionary determinations are unreviewable under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B) | Court found a colorable legal question (jurisdiction to review whether IJ may revisit I-130 bona fides) and exercised jurisdiction to decide it |
Key Cases Cited
- Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2002) (approved I-130 is prima facie evidence; alien must prove eligibility by preponderance in immigration court)
- Elias-Zacarias v. INS, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (standard for reviewing administrative factfinding: supported by substantial evidence)
- Ramirez-Matias v. Holder, 778 F.3d 322 (1st Cir. 2015) (review of BIA decisions that adopt IJ reasoning and add its own is tiered review)
- DaCosta v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2006) (courts retain jurisdiction to review colorable legal and constitutional claims despite limits on reviewability)
- McKenzie-Francisco v. Holder, 662 F.3d 584 (1st Cir. 2011) (definition of bona fide marriage: intent at time of marriage to establish a life together)
- Nikijuluw v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2005) (appellate standard: agency findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence)