Interim Decision #2690 

MATTER OF UMALE 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-21308202 

Decided by Board March 7, 1979 

The lawful permanent resident status of a petitioner cannot be attacked in visa petition 

proceedings on the ground that the status was improperly obtained, if the petitioner 

presently resides in the United States. Matter of Abdelhadi, Interim Decision 2406 

(BIA 1975) distinguished. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Bert D. Greenberg, Esquire 

Suite 730 

8484 Wilshire Boulevard 

Beverly Bills, California 90211 

13Y: Milhullan, Chairman; Maniatis, Applernan, Maguire, and Farb, Board Members 

The lawful permanent resident petitioner applied for preference 

status for the beneficiary as her spouse under section 203(a)(2) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(2). In a decision 

dated October 12, 1978, the Officer-in-Charge denied the petition in 

-view of a question that had arisen regarding the petitioner's status as a 

lawful permanent resident. The petitioner has appealed. The record will 

be remanded to the Officer-in-Charge for further proceedings. 

The beneficiary is a 29-year-old native and citizen of the Philippines. 

The petitioner is a 26-year-old native and citizen of the Philippines. The 

record indicates that the petitioner has an Alien Registration Receipt 

Card (Form 1-151) which states that she was admitted to the United 

States as a lawful permanent resident sometime between July of 1976 

and March of 1977. The petitioner filed a visa petition on behalf of the 

beneficiary on March 28, 1977. 

A marriage certificate submitted with the visa petition states that the 

petitioner and the beneficiary were married by a minister on March 15, 

1.977, in the Philippines. 

On July 20, 1978, however, a Service investigator submitted a differrit marriage certificate to the Officer-in-Charge. This one states that 

the petitioner and the beneficiary were married on April 28, 1975, by a 

raaunicipal judge, in the Philippines. The Officer-in-Charge notified the 

petitioner of this information in a letter dated August 29, 1978, explainbrig that if she was married when she entered the United States, she was 

6S2 
Interim Decision #2690 

not entitled to the visa she entered with inasmuch as she had obtained it 

as the "unmarried" daughter of a United States citizen. The Officer-inCharge advised the petitioner that her visa petition would be denied in 

15 days in view of this doubt regarding her status as a lawful permanent 

resident, unless she submitted additional information in opposition to 

this ground for denial. The petitioner did not submit additional information, so the Officer-in-Charge denied her petition approximately six 

weeks later. 

In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 

immigration benefit sought rests upon the petitioner. Matter of Brantigan, 11 I. & N. Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). Ordinarily, the status of a petitioner who claims that she is a lawful permanent resident can be verified 

from official records of the Service or by the submission of evidence such 

as an Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form 1-151). 8 C.F.R. 204.2(b). 

In this case, however, substantial doubt has been cast on the petitioner's status by the submission of a marriage contract dated prior to 

her being granted first-preference status as the unmarried daughter of a 

United States citizen. There is, therefore, an additional issue concerning whether a visa petition proceeding is a proper forum for determining 

the petitioner's immigrant status. 

We note first that a married alien who obtains an immigrant visa by 

representing herself a s being an unmarried daughter of a United States 

citizen is deportable under section 241(a)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 

1251(a)(1), as an alien excludable at the time of entry under section 

212(a)(20) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(20). See Matter of Wong, Interim 

Decision 2549 (BIA 1977). 

An alien presently in the United States who is accused of improperly 

obtaining her immigrant visa is entitled to the procedural safeguards of 

a deportation hearing pursuant to 8 C.F. R. 242. In deportation proceedings, the burden is on the Government to prove deportability by clear, 

unequivocal, and convincing evidence. Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 

(1968). in contrast, in visa petition proceedings the petitioner has the 

burden of proving that she is entitled to the immigration benefit sought. 

Matter of Brantigan, supra. Moreover, in deportation proceedings a 

respondent is entitled to many avenues of discretionary administrative 

relief not available in visa petition proceedings. 

We find that until the petitioner has been found deportable according 

to the procedures specified by law, she remains a lawful permanent 

resident of the United States. The petitioner presently resides in the 

United States. Compare Matter of Abdelh,adi, Interim Decision 2406 

(BIA 1975), where we held that the Service could attack the immigrant 

status of a petitioner in visa petition proceedings where the petitioner, 

because of absence from the United States, was not amenable to deportation or exclusion proceedings 

683 
Interim Decision #2690 

We conclude, therefore, that the Officer-in-Charge erred in denying 

the visa petition on the ground that the petitioner's status as a lawful 

permanent resident was in question. Accordingly, the record will be 

remanded to the Officer-in-Charge for further proceedings. 

The issue regarding the legality of the petitioner's status can also be 

settled on remand, in an appropriate proceeding, should the Service 

wish to challenge it. 

ORDER: The record is remanded to the Officer-in-Charge for further 

proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and the entry of a new 

decision. 

FURTHER ORDER: Should the new decision be adverse to the 

petitioner, an appropriate order shall be entered and the record shall be 

certified to us for review. 

684