BIA Affirms Revocation of I-130 Based on Marriage Fraud Evidence

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that good and sufficient cause existed to revoke approval of a spousal visa petition where the record contained substantial and probative evidence of marriage fraud in the beneficiary’s prior marriage. The evidence included a sworn affidavit from the prior spouse admitting that the marriage was fraudulent and a contemporaneous government memorandum corroborating that admission.

The Board dismissed the appeal and affirmed the revocation. The Board found that later exculpatory letters did not overcome the earlier contemporaneous evidence, and that a marriage certificate alone did not establish that the prior marriage was bona fide. The Board concluded that the INA 204(c) marriage fraud bar applied, despite evidence that the petitioner may have been suffering cognitive decline at the time of his accusatory statement.

The full text of Matter of Nwagwu can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1442531/dl?inline

First Circuit Finds Notice to Attorney of Visa Revocation was Sufficient

The First Circuit has determined that serving the attorney who filed a VAWA self-petition with notice of intent to revoke the approval of that petition is sufficient to provide notice the applicant of the intended revocation. The full text of Manguriu v. Garland can be found here:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1220P-01A.pdf

Second Circuit Construes Notice Requirements for Revocation of an Employment-Based Immigrant Petition

Certain beneficiaries of employment-based immigrant visas, who have filed for their residency but whose applications remain pending, can take advantage of a procedure known as "porting," which permits them to change employers without affecting their pending applications for residency.  The new employer effectively substitutes in as the sponsoring petitioner for the former employer who actually filed the immigrant petition on the employee's behalf.  The question becomes, if U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) believes there is grounds for revoking the approved immigrant petition, and the employee has ported to a new employer, who must USCIS notify? The original petitioning employer (with whom the beneficiary/employee no longer has any relationship), the beneficiary/employee, or the new employer/sponsor? 

In a published decision, the Second Circuit ruled that notifying the former employer is not sufficient.  The court remanded for the District Court to determine f the requisite notice should go the beneficiary/employee, the new sponsor/employer, or both.

The full text of Mantena v. Johnson can be found here: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d2fe6f7c-3e22-435a-b753-bf6dca1fa9bd/1/doc/14-2476_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d2fe6f7c-3e22-435a-b753-bf6dca1fa9bd/1/hilite/