dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-A-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 19, 2019, 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER. 
The Petitioner, a physician, seeks second preference immigrant classification. as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U .S.C. § ll 53(b )(2). Section 203(b )(2)(B)(ii) of the Act provides that such a 
waiver s1'all be afforded to a physician who. meets several conditions, including that the individual 
will work in an area with a·shortage of health care professionals. · 
The Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Forni 1-140; Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, concluding that the Petitioner previously married his second wife, T-M-, in an 
attempt to evade immigration laws, therefore barring the petition's approval under section 204(c) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 154(c).· 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional document~tion and contends that his marriage to T-M­
was not entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws and that he is eligible for a 
physician national interest waiver. In addition, he argues that the Director's failure to issue a notice 
of intent to deny (NOID) the instant Fqrm 1-140 prior to its denial was in violation of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations and due process . 
. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or a:liens of 
excepti_onal ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be mad~ available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially _benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational 
Matter of M-A-A-
interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the sciences~ arts, 
professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer-
(i) National interest ~aiver. Subject to clause (ii), the Attorney General I may, 
when the Attorney General deems it to be ·in the national interest, waive the 
requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, 
professions, or business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
(ii) Physici~ns working in shortage areas or veteran faciliti~s. 
(I) In general. The Attorney General shall grant a national interest waiver 
pursuant to clause (i) on behalf of any alien physician with respect to 
whom a petition for preference classification has been filed under 
subparagraph (A) if-
(aa) th~ alien physician agrees to work full time as a physician'in an 
area or areas .designated by the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services as having a shortage of health care professionals or at a 
health care facility under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs; and 
(bb) a Federal ~gency or a department of public health in any State has 
previously determined that. the alien physician's work in such an 
area or at such facility was in-the public interest. 
In addition, section 204(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 154(c), states: 
Notwithstanding the provisions qf subsection (b) no petition shall be approved if (1) 
the alien has previously been accorded, or has sought to be accorded, an immediate 
. relative or preference status as the spouse of a citizen of the United States or the 
spouse of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, by reason of a marriage 
determined by the Attorney General to have been entered into for the purpose of 
evading tpe immigration laws, or (2) the Attorney General has determined that the 
alien has attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading 
the immigration laws. -' 
1 ·Pursuant to section 1517 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ("HSA"), Pub. L. No. I 07-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 2311 
(codified at 6 U.S.C. § 557 (2012)), any reference to the Attorney General in a provision of the Act describing functions 
that were transferred from the Attorney General or other Department of Justice official to the Department of Home Ian~ 
Security by the HSA "shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary" Qf Homeland Security. See also 6 U.S.C. § 542 note 
(2012); 8 U.S.C. § 1551 note (2012). · 
2 
.
Matter of M-A-A-
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .2(a)(l )(ii) provides: 
Fraudulent marriage prohibition . Section 204( c) of the Act prohibits the approval of 
a visa petition filed on behalf of an alien who has attempted or conspired to enter into 
a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws; The director will deny a 
petition for immigrant visa classification filed on behalf of any alien for whom there 
is substantial and probative evidence of such an attempt or conspiracy , regardless of 
whether that alien received a benefit through the attempt or conspiracy . Although it 
is not necessary that the ali~n have been convicted ot: or even prosecuted for, t!1e 
attempt or conspiracy, the evidence of the attempt or conspiracy must be contained in 
the alien's file. 
USCIS cannot approve a petition if an individual previously married in an attempt to evade 
immigration laws. Section 204(c) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § l 154(c). To invoke section 204(c) of the 
Act, the record must contain "substantial and probative " evidence of marriage fraud . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.2(a)(l)(ii) ; Matter of Tav.:fik, 20 l&N Dec. 166, 167 (BIA 1990). An adjudicator generally 
"should not give conclusive effect to determinations made in prior proceedings, but, rather , should 
reach his [ or her] own independent conclusion based on the evidence." Jd. at 168. 
If substantial and probative evidence of marriage fraud exists, a petitioner must show by a 
preponderance of evidence that he did not marry for the purpose of evading immigration laws. 
Matter of Laureano , 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 (BIA 1983). The central question in determining the bona 
fides of a marriage is whether the parties intended to establish a life together at the time of their 
marnage. Id. at 3; see also Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 611 ( 1953)." 
. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The record indicates that on 1997, the Petitioner married a U .S. citizen, T-M-, who 
later filed an immigrant visa petition for him a s her spouse. 2 See section 201 (b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i} (defining the term " immediate relative s" to include spouses of U.S . 
citizens). In May 1999, the parties appeared for an interview at the Chicago immigration office . 
Because .of concerns noted by the interviewing officer , a field investigation was conducted to 
determine if their marriage was entered into to evade immigration laws. Based on the results of the 
investigation , a ~OID was issued to T-M- in November 2000 informing ]:ter of derogatory 
information indicating that her marriage to the Petitioner was not bona fide. In September 2001, T­
M- withdrew the petition she filed on his behalf, but maint ained that their marriage was entered into 
in good faith. _The Petitioner and T-M- divorced in 2001. 
2 The Fonn 1~ 130, Petition for Alien Relative, and an accompanying Form 1-.485, Application to Register Permanent 
Residence or Adjust Status, were both filed on October 11 , 1997. In support of the Form 1-130, T-M- provided an 
1997 Judgement for Dissolution of Marriage from the Circuit Court of ___ Illinois for the 
Petitioner's first marriage to Y-D-. 
.
Matier of M-A-A-
The Petitioner subsequently married A-M- in 2002, and in April 2002 she filed a petition for 
him as her spouse. They divorced in 2005 and A-M-'s petition was denied in April 2009 
pursuant to section 204(c) of the Act. Subsequently, the Petitioner married L-T- in 2009 . In 
July 2009, she filed a petition for him as her spouse, but in April 2012 that petition was also denied 
under section 204( c) of the Act. L-T-' s appeal of that decision to the B0ard oflmmigration Appeals 
was dismissed in November 2014. 
In January 2016, the Petitioner filed the instant Form I-140 petition , accompanied by .affidavits and 
evidence relating to the claimed bona fides of his marriage to T-M-. The Director denied this 
petition iil March 2018 pursuant to section 204(c) of the Act. The Director's decision explained that 
this determination was based on the results of the investigations of the Petitioner and T-M-'s 
residences and evidence indicating that he was living with his first wife, Y-D-, at the time of the . - . . 
investigations. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director should hav.e issued a NOID prior 
to denial of the instant Form I-140, and that failure to do so was in violation of USCIS regulations 
and due process. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § I 03 .2(b )(8)(ii) provides that, if all required initial 
evidence has been submitted but the evidence provided does not establish eligibility, USCIS may: 
deny the benefit request for ineligibility; request more information or evidence, or notify the 
applicant or petitioner of its intent to deny the benefit request and the ba~is for the proposed denial , 
and require that the applicant or petitioner submit a response. First, we note that the regulation 
provides that USCIS may issue such a notice , but does not impose an absolute requirement that it 
must do so. Moreover, here, the Director did not deny the petition because initial evidence was 
missing; rather the submitted evidence failed to establish eligibility for the benefit. While the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i) requires USCIS to disclose derogatory information of which 
a petitioner is unaware, affording him an opportunity to rebut the information before the decision is 
rendered, the Petitioner's Form I-140 was accompanied by statements and evidence directly 
addressing the specific findings of the marnage fraud investigation, thus indicating that he ~as 
aware of that information. 3 · 
· Further, had the Director committed a procedural error by failing to issue a NOID, it is not clear 
what re~edy would be appropriate beyond the appeal process itself. The Petitioner has, in fact, 
3 We note that the record includes proceedings relating to three previous spousal petitions filed on the Petitioner's behalf. 
In addition·to the documentation regarding his physician national interest waiver petitio·i1, the Petitioner submitted copies 
ofNOIDs and denial decisions from these prior proceedings discussing the derogatory information relating to his second 
marriage to T-M~ that formed the bases for the Director's determination that he entered into that marriage for the purpose 
of evading the immigration laws. For example, the Petitioner provided copies of USCIS's November 2011 NOID and 
· April 2012 denial notice that both in.;:luded a detailed discussion and analysis of the information and evidence in the 
record relating to his marriage to T-M~. Furthermore, the documents he presented at the time he filed the instant Form 1-
140 specifically address these derogatory findings. 
• 
4 
.
\ 
Matter of M-A-A-
supplemented the record on appeal and made further arguments in response to the Director's 
decision in this matter. Therefore, it would serve no meaningful purpose to remand the case to 
afford the Petitioner the opportunity to supplement the record with new evidence. Regardless, we 
will review the record in its entirety based on the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding his" 
eligibility. We exercise de nova review of all issues of fact, law, policy, and discretion. See Matter 
of Df;anasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (A,t\O 2016). This means that we look at the record anew and are 
not required to defer to findings made in prior decisions. Furthermore , our decision may address 
new issues that were not raised or reso-l~ed in the prior decision. · 
In the appeal brief, the Petitioner argues that USClS does not have substantial and probative 
evicf~nce demonstrating that his marriage to T-M- was entered into for the purpose of evading the 
immigration laws. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the record includes substantial and 
probative evidence demonstrating that his second marriage was entered into for the purpose of 
evading the immigration laws. 
The Petitioner entered the United States as a B-1 nonimmigrant visitor on May 21, 1996, and was 
admitted until June 4, 1996, but overstayed his nonimmigrant visa. The record reflects that in a 
period of less than two months in 1997, the Petitioner divorced his Nigerian wife Y-D-, married T­
M-, and filed for immigration benefits as the spouse of a U.S. citizen. In addition, one day before 
the Petitioner and T-M-'s scheduled May 6, 1999, interview at the Chicago immigration office, she 
obtained an Illinois photo identification card (ID) listing her address as 4 · 
. The record includes the Petitioner's December 22, 1998 Apartment Lease for 
Illinois beginning on January I, 1999 and ending ori 
December 31, 1999. The Petitioner is the only named lessee and signatory on this apartment lease. 
Furthermore, T-M-'s Illinois ID issued on May 5, 1999, misspells and does not 
include an apartment number. 
The parties were interviewed by an immigration officer jointly on May 6, 1999, and they maintained 
that they were residing together at lllinois. The interviewing 
officer determined that the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner entered into 
his second marriage in good faith. Based on concerns raised during the interview such as the issue 
date of T-M-'s ID, the presence of Y-D- (the Petitioner's former wife) in (the same 
county where he married T-M-) , and the manner in which the divorce decree with Y-D- considered 
matters of custody and child support for their alleged adopted children 5, the Assistant District 
4 While car insurance documentatio~ in_ the record shows that T-M- drove an automobile in 1999, we note that at the 
May 6, 1999 immigration interview she presented an Illinois State ID card (issued one day earlier) instead of her Illinois 
driver's license. 
5 The 1997 Judgement for Dissolution of Marriage from the Circuit Court of Illinois for the 
Petitioner's first marriage to Y-0- stated that they were married in Nigeria in 1995 and that "two (2) children were 
adopted to the parties: iiamely [T-A-], born 1995 and [K-A-], born 1995." In addition, on both 
the Form 1-130 and Form 1-485, the Petitioner claimed he had two children, daughters T-A- and K-A-, born on 
1995 in Nigeria. 
.J 
Matter of M-A-A-
Director for Examinations requested an investigation to determine the validity of the Petitioner's 
second marriage. · 
On October 4, 2000, • an immigration investigation at Illinois 
( apartment complex) indicated that T-M- was the only person on the lease for that 
address. The record includes T-M-'s lease for September 1997 until August 1998, but 
it does not . identify the Petitioner as a lessee or tenant. The investigator showed the building 
manager a photograph of the Petitioner, but the building manager said that she had never seen the 
Petitioner. In addition, the building manager informed the investigator that T-M- was no longer 
residing at and had moved to ----~-- Illinois. . 
Investigators subsequently encountered T-M- at her residence at on October 4, 
2000. The lead investigator noted that he asked her if the Petitioner was home and requested to enter 
her apartment to observe evidence of a bona fide marriage. T-M- stated that the Petitioner was at 
work and that they have two residences. She explained that the Petitioner resided at 
Illinois because that address was closer to his job. In addition, T-M- indicated 
that she had no keys to the Petitioner's address. The investigator further 
wrote that he "requested again to enter her apartment to look for evidence .which may help detem1ine 
the validity of her marriage." In response, T-M- claimed that she had pietures of the Petitioner, but 
did not have any of his clothes in her apartment-. Despite two requests, she departed without 
allowing the investigators to enter her apartment. 
In addition, investigators visited the Petitioner's address at _ _ 
Illinois on October 4, 2000. A mailbox inside the apartment building listed the 
Petitioner ' s name along with that of Y-O- (his first wife) and her mother, F-O-.. The investigators 
knocked on the door to Apartment "a first floor garden apartment," but there was no answer. 
The lead investigator observed that there was no furniture inside, that the apartment was vacant, and 
that its flooring was torn up as if a construction project were. underway. On October 5, 2000, the 
lead investigator contacted the apartment manager at The apartment 
manager stated that the Petitioner moved to apartment in January 1999· and that the Petitioner 
was the only person on the initial lease. The apartment manager further indicated that because there 
was a leak in apartment , the Petitioner moved to apartment on July 31, 2000. The record 
includes the Petitioner's July 27, 2000 Apartment Lease for 
Illinois beginning on August 1, 2000 and ending on July 31, 2001 that the 
apai1ment manager provided to the investigators in November 2000, but this document was not 
signed by T-M-. 6 ~· 
The record also includes evidence showing that the Petitioner and his 1first wife, Y-O-, had a child 
together, A-A-, who was born on __ 2000 (during his marriage to T-M-) and who shared the 
6 In support of the current physician national interest waiver petition, the Petitioner provides a copy of this lease that 
appears to have been signed by T-M- after the site investigation. 
6 
.
Matter of M-A-A-
Petitioner's last name. On A-A-'s birth certificate 7, Y-D- listed her "residence" as 
Furthermore, although the Petitioner married T-M- in 1997, the record includes evidence 
' showing that he initially filed his 1'997 U.S. federal income tax return as "Single,." his 1998 U.S. 
federal income tax return as "Head of Household ," ~is 1998 rtlinois income tax return as "Single or 
head of household," and his 1999 U.S. federal income tax return as "Head of Household." The 
record further reflects that he filled out "Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns" 8 for 1997, 
1998, and 1999 to change his filing status to married, but the appellate submission does not show 
that these amended returns were actually filed with the Interna( Revenue Service or the state of 
Illinois. Regardless, the initial filing status of the Petitioner's tax returns as single and then head of 
household (rather than .married or married filing separately) is further evidence supporting the 
conclusion that he did not enter into a bona fide marriage. 
In light of the above , we find that record of proceedings contains substantial and probative evidence 
demonstrating that the Petitioner's marriage to T-M- was an attempt to circumvent th,e immigration 
laws. A finding that section 204( c) of the Act does apply to an individual must be based on evidence 
that is substantial and probative. Matter of Tawfik, 20 I&N Dec. at 166; Matter of Agdianoay, 16 
l&N Dec. 545 (BIA 1978); Matter of La Gratia, 14 l&N Dec. 110 (BIA 1972). Once USC IS has 
met this initial. requirement, the burden shifts back to the petitioner, as part of his burden of proof in 
visa petition or revocation proceedings, to rebut the Government's evidence and establish that the 
prior marriage was bona fide and that section 204(c) of the Act should no.t apply. Matter of Kahy, 19 
I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 1988). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that affidavits contammg "unrefuted sworn testimony of 
contemporaneous witnesses affirm that at its inception" his marriage to T-M- was bona fide. The 
record includes affidavits from the Petitioner, his first wi'fe (Y-D-), his second wife (T-M-), her 
mother and daughter , the Petitioner's nephew, a former coworker, a neighbor, and previous counsel 
. (B-1-) for the Petitioner and T-M-'s October 1997 Form 1-130 and Form I-485. 
In his affidavit, the Petitioner explains that while he has had "five failed marriages," he has not 
engaged in marriage fraud and "deeply loved each woman" he married. He describes instances of 
sexual abuse that he suffered as a child in Nigeria and their adverse effect on his being able to 
maintain trusting relationships as an adult. He further discusses his relationship with T-M- and 
provides information about their financial and personal problems. With regard to the claim on both· 
the Form I-130 and Form 1-4859 that the Petitioner had two children in Nigeria, daughters T-A- and 
K-A-, he now indicates that they were a female friend's children and that he and Y-D- "never 
formally adopted them through a court" and that they "are living with their mother in Nigeria." In 
7 The Petitioner and Y-D- are listed as the child's parents on this birth certificate. 
8 The Petitioner subm.itted copies of these tax returns in support of the current petition. 
9 We note that in September 1997 T-M- signed the Form 1-130 and Petitioner signed the accompanying Form 1-485 
certifying under penalty ofperjury that the information they provided was "true and correct." 
-, 
.
Matter of M-A-A-
addition to misrepresenting information about his purported children on his Form I-485, we note that 
at his May 6, 1999 -immigration interview, the Petitioner indicated to the interviewing officer that T-
M- was residing with him at ===~ ======= . Illinois, but the 
record indicates she was actually living at , Illinois. A petitioner 
must resolve discrepancies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the 
truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies 
· may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the 
requested immigration benefit. Id. Here, we find that the numerous discrepancies in the Petitioner's 
past statements cast doubt on the credibility and reliability of his assertions. 
'-
The affidavit from the Petitioner's first wife, Y-D-, contends that after the parties' divorce in 
1997, she married a U.S. citizen, and that soon after their marriage her new spouse became abusive. 
Y-D- asserts that she contacted the Petitioner in December 1999 for a place to stay and that she 
moved into his residence at -·~ _,_ , Illinois. She 
attests that "[ a ]round the beginning of 2000," she and the Petitioner "crossed a line and were 
intimate." After becoming pregnant with the Petitioner's child, Y-D- states that her mother, F-D-, 
"came from Nigeria to help" and resided with them. In addition, Y-D- claims that she moved out in 
March 2000 to another address, Illinois, but that mail 
addressed to her and F-D- was "still delivered to [the Petitioner's] apartment." She further indicates: 
"I had my name and my mom's name on his mail box even after I moved out in March/April. I and 
my mother were getting our mail at [the Petitioner's] place because we did not have a permanent 
address until much later in 2000." 10 The record, however, includes no evidence to corroborate 
Y-D-'s claim that she moved out in March 2000, and we n·ote that this claim contradicts her 
residence information listed on A-A-'s 2000 birth certificate. 
Regarding the credibility of Y-D, we further note that the 1997 Judgement for Dissolution of 
Marriage from the Circuit Court of terminating her marriage to the Petitioner states 
that she "offered testimony" to the court "that two (2) children were adopted to the parties, namely: 
[T-A- and K-A-]." However, in her affidavit, Y-D- now asserts that the adoption of T-A- and K-A 
' "was not a legal adoption that was registered with the government. These children are with their 
mother in Nigeria." Accordingly, Y-O-'s testimony to the Circuit Court of that she 
and the Petitioner had adopted T-A- and K-A- was not truthful. For these reasons, we find her 
statements unreliable. 
In her affidavit, T-M- contends that her marriage to the Petitioner "was genuine and real." She 
discusses how they met and asserts that they "loved each other." In addition, T-M- describes her 
relationship with the Petitioner, his jobs, and his involvement with her daughter, S-L-. She states 
that they "did not have a lot of money and did not have a wedding ." T-M- fu11her claims that the 
Petitioner lived with her at _________ Illinois ( ___ ) in a "Section 
10 As discussed earlier, a mailbox inside the Petitioner's apartment building in October 2000 listed the Petitioner's name 
along with that ofY-D- and F-D-. Furthermore, on A-A-'s birth certificate in 2000, Y-D- listed her residence as 
0 
.
Matter of M-A-A-
( 
8 housing unit." The appellate submission includes T-M-'s lease for early September 
1997 until August 199811 , but it does not identify the Petitioner as a lessee or tenant to corroborate 
her claim that they lived together at that address. Furthermore, on the Form I-130 she filed in ,the 
Petitioner's behalf in October 199i 2, T-M- identified Illinois 
(the address the Petitioner listed on his concurrently filed Form I-485) as her address , despite signing 
her lease less than two months earlier (August J997) . It therefore appears she 
provided misleading information relating to her address when she signed the Form 1-130 on 
September 23, 1997, and later filed that form in October . This information relating to the parties ' 
separate residences also casts doubt on the assertion that the parties were· living together at the 
inception of their marriage . 
In response to the investigation's finding relating to the quilding manager's statement 
that she had never seen the Petitioner, he provided a December 2015 letter from 
stating: '' Apartments is a 99 unit property . . . . It is a multi-family 
property with over 120 residents. On-site management is diligent in managing the residents and the 
property, however because of the size of the property it is impossible to know all of the resident's 
guests that may come to visit." This letter refers to a "resident's guests" '(emphasis added) rather 
• than actual residents of the property. In addition, the "Lessor " identified on T-M-'s August 1997 
lease agreement is " " rather than 
Accordingly, the aforementioned letter from 2015 · does not overcome the information the 
investigator received in 2000 directly from the ___ building manager. 
T-M- further explains in her affidavit. that she and the Petitioner "did not file a joint income tax" 
return or include the Petitioner on her lease because she "did not want to lose t9e Section 8 and I 
have heard that if one files joint income tax, then you get kicked out of Section 8. It was difficult to 
get on Section 8, and I did not Jant to risk losing it. I was also getting more taxes back that way." 
T-M-_further contends that she "could not afford to pay higher rent and I was afraid that as a married 
couple, we will expect to pay more." Furthermore , T-M- indicates that the Petitioner paid the bills 
and she lists some purchases. that she charged to their credit union account. She also mentions 
financial issues that caused problems in th~ir relationship and notes that "he moved out in December 
1998 and went to live at , Illinois.' ' T-M- maintains 
that she visitectithe Petitioner there "almost every week, usually on weekends." 
With regard to the May 6, 1999 immigration 'interview , T-M- states: " Before the interview with the 
, immigration service I changed my ID which had an old address . · I never thought about this earlier 
until I got the notice so I wanted to be fully compliant." While car insurance documentation in the 
record shows that T-M- drove an automobile in 1999, she presented an Illinois ID (issued one day 
earlier) instead of her driver's license at the interview. Further , slie indicated to the interviewing 
officer that she was residing __________________ , Illinois , but the 
11 This lease is dated August 18, 1997, and signed by T-M- . 
12 She ,signed the Form 1-130 on September 23, 1997 (four days after the partie s married) , certif ying under penalty of 
perjury that the information she provided was "true and correct.' ' 
9 
.
> 
· Matter of M-A-A-
record indicates she was actually living at ___ lllinois. In addition to 
having provided misleading information to an immigration ofiicer regarding her true address, T-M­
asserts in her affidavit that she concealed her marriage with the Petitioner to receive a larger tax 
refund arid to qualify for Section 8 housing. We find that the discrepancies and misleading 
statements noted above cast doubt on the credibility of T-M-'s statements. 
In support of the instant petition, the Petitioner also provided an affidavit from T-M-'s former 
attorney, B-I-. The . record includes a June 1998 letter to the Petitioner and T-M- from B-I­
withdrawing his legal representation and stating that "issues have arisen that make it impossible and 
unethical for us to continue representation as your counsel of record in this matter." In his affidavit 
addressing this statement , B-1- asserts: , "[T-A-] asked me to withdraw the I-130 as petitioner ... but 
there was also an I-485 , and both she and [the Petitioner] jointly approached me and met with me. I 
. explained at the time, that this presented a conflict for me and the only alternative left to me was to 
decline further representation." B-I- further states that his withdrawal from their case "was not 
intended to convey any other impression , implicit or otherwise , neither was it a reflection on the' 
intention, or validity or otherwise of the underlying marriage of [the Petitioner] and [T-M-]." 
Additional affidavits from relatives, a neighbor , and a former coworker attest to the bona fides of the 
Petitioner's relationship with T-M-. The record also includes ·documentation relating to an 
automobile ins],!rance policy, health insurance 13, a credit union account, a telephone calling plan, a 
cable television bill, and life insurance. In addition , the Petitioner provides his tax returns 14 and 
lease agreements for his address. 15 Furthermore , he submits journal articles that 
discuss the adverse effects of childhood sexual abuse , including effects such as having interpersonal 
relationship difficulties. ) · 
The Petitioner, however, has not subniitted sufficient corroborating evidence to demonstrate the 
bona fides of his relationship with T-M- and overcome the substantial and probative evidence that 
shows that his prior marriage to her was entered into primarily to evade immigration laws. In 
, • I 
addition to the investigations of the Petitioner and T-M:-'s separate residences, the interviews with 
landlords, the initial tax filings, and the initial leases listing .only one paiiy, the record includes 
A-A-'s biqh certificate showing that the Petitioner fathered a child with Y-D- and was living with 
her while claiming that he was in a bona fide marriage with T-M-. We do not find the affidavits, the 
. financial docu~nentation relating to the Petitioner ' s involvement with T-M- , and his assertion that 
childhood sexual abuse he suffered has hindered his ability to maintain trusting relationships 
sufficient to establish by a preponderance of evidence that he did not marry for the purpose of 
evading immigration laws. · The evidentiary weight of those documents does not overcome the 
13 The health insurance form is dated January 1997, eight months before the parties married. 
14 As discussed, the Petitioner initially filed his tax returns as single and head of household instead of married or married 
filing separately. · 
15 As noted, the record _includes the Petitioner's December 22, I 998 Apartment Lease for 
_ Illinois beginning on January I, 1999 and ending on December 31 , 1999. The Petitioner is 
the only named lessee and signatory on this apartment lease. The lease agreements he submits on appeal (listing T-M-) 
are dated Apri1'2000 and July 2000. 
10 
• MatterofM-A-A- · 
' 
derogatory information in the record. This information detracts from the credibility of Petitioner and 
T-M- and their claim that he married her in good faith. Accordingly, approval of the instant Form 1-
140 petition is barred pursuant to section 204( c) of the Act. · 
\, 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner is barred under section 204(c) of the Act 
. · and therefore he has not established he is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
'ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. • 
· Cite as Matter of M-A-A-, iD# 2032076 (AAO Feb. 19, 2019) r • . . 
1 1