2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-21-2005 

# C ruz v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2936

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C r uz v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 981. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/981NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 04- 2936 LEON OR CRU Z, Pet i t i oner

v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 75- 847- 885) Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 2, 2005 B E FO R E : FU E N T E S, G R E E N B E R G , and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: J une 21, 2005)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s m at t ercomes on be for e thi s cour ton a pet i t i on forr evi ew of a de ci s i on and or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( her ei naft er“B I A ”) ent er ed on J une 10, 2004,2

aff i r m i ng a dec i s i on and or derof an i m m i gr at i on j udge of J ul y20, 2001, deny i ng p e tit io n e r L e o n o r C ru z (“ C ru z ” ) a n a d ju stm e n t o f

h e r sta tu s b e c a u se sh e so u g h t to o b tain t he adj us t m entbyfr aud orm i s r epr es ent at i on of a mat er i al fac ti n vi ol at i on of s ect i on 2 1 2 (a )( 6 )( c )( i) o f

th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( h e re in a f te r “ IN A ” ), 8 U .S .C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( c) ( i ) . T he I N S char ged thatC ruz comm i t t ed fr aud w hen s he cont ended that sh e w a s e n tit led to a n a d ju stm e n t o f

h e r sta tu s o n th e b a sis o f a f ra u d u len t m a rria g e to E dw i n C ruz, a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, thats he ent er ed i nt o on M ar ch 7, 1997. C ruz s ought t he adj us t m entbeca us e s he w as i n t hi s countr yi l l egal l yas s he had ove r s t ay ed the per i od h e r v isito r’s v isa a u th o riz e d f o r h e r p re se n c e h e re . B u t if s h e w a s g u iltyo f f ra u d in s eeki ng t he adj us t m entt hen s he i s s ubj ectt o r emoval and w oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o t he adj us t m ent . See I N A § 237( a) ( 1) ( A ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( A ) . T he B I A had j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 C. F . R. § 1 0 0 3 . 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) a n d we h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e rI NA § 242( a) ( 1) , 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . I nas m uch as the B I A s um m ar i l yaff i r m ed the i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s or der , w e, i n fac t , ar e r evi ew i ng the j udge’ s or der . See D i a v. A s h c ro f t, 3 5 3 F .3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( e n b a n c ). I n vi ew of the ci r cumst ance t hatther e i s no doubtthatC ruz mar r i ed Edw i n C ruz at a t i m e w hen ther e w er e no l egal i m pedi m ent s barr i ng thei rm arr i age s o that , as faras appea r s , i n a form al s ens e thei rm arr i age w as val i d, the governm enthad the bur den of pr oof t o demonstr at e thatt he mar r i age, i n fac t , w as fr audul ent , a bur den i tm et . See M at t erof Taw fi k, 20 I & N D ec. 166, 170 ( B I A 1990) . A tthi s t i m e w e r evi ew the3

i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s deci s i on and or dert o det erm i ne i f i tw as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e . S e e IN S v . E lia s -Z a c a ri a s , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 & n .1 ., 1 1 2 S .C t. 8 1 2 , 8 1 5 & n .1 ( 1992) ; R odr i guez v. I N S, 204 F. 3d 25, 27 ( 1s tC i r . 2000) . C ruz cha l l enges the dec i s i on a n d o rd e r, co n ten d in g th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t m e e t it s b u rd e n o f p ro o f w ith su b sta n tial a n d p ro b a tiv e e v id e n c e th a t th e m a rria g e w a s f ra u d u len t. C ruz r ai s es a s econd i s s ue, char gi ng thatthe i m m i gr at i on j udge r el i ed on hea r s ay i n m aking his determ i nati on t hat the g ov ernm ent had m eti t s burden of p roof t o est abli sh t hats he had e nt er ed i nt o herm arr i age f r audul ent l yforthe purpos e of e vadi ng the i m m i gr at i on l aw s . A ccor di ng t o C ruz, thi s r el i ance deni ed herdue pr oces s of l aw . She expl ai ns herfac tual pr edi cat e fort hi s ar gum entas fol l ow s : “the I m m i gr at i on J udge pr i m ar i l ybas ed hi s fi ndi ng t hatL eonorC ruz’ s m arr i age t o E dw i n C ruz w as a fr aud fr om i t s i ncept i on on t he hea r s ayt es t i m onyof [D i s t r i ctA dj udi cat i on O ffi cerC hr i s t i na] G ur ko re g a rd in g v e rb a l sta tem e n ts a lleg e d lym a d e in E n g lish b yE d w in C ru z to h e r d u rin g h is F e b ru a ry2 0 0 0 in ter ro g a tio n .” P e tit io n e r’s b r. at 8 -9 . T h e p a rties a d v ise u s th a t th is t es t i m onyr ecount ed Edw i n C ruz’ s s t at ementatthe type of he ar i ng ori nt ervi ew t o w hi ch St okes v. I N S, 393 F. Supp. 24 ( S. D . N . Y . 1975) , r efe r s pr i ort o t he hea r i ng befor e the i m m i gr at i on j udge. A tt hi s St okes hear i ng E dw i n C ruz i ndi cat ed thathe mar r i ed C ruz for t he s ol e purpos e of pe r m i t t i ng hert o r ece i ve a gr een c ar d fac i l i t at i ng hers t ayi n t he U ni t ed St at es . T he r es pondentconce des thatw e r evi ew thi s i s s ue de novo. W e cons i dert he hea r s ayevi dence ques t i on fi r s t . T her e i s no doubtbutthatthe4

F e d e ra l R u le s o f

E v id e n c e d o n o t a p p ly in im m ig ra tio n re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s . N e v e rth e les s, e v id e n c e c a n n o t b e a d m itt e d u n les s it is p ro b a tiv e a n d u n les s its u se is f u n d a m e n ta lly f

a irs o th a t its a d m is s io n d o e s n o t d e p ri v e th e a lie n o f d u e p ro c e s s o f

la w . E zea gw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 405- 06 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . O f cour s e, w e have re c o g n iz e d th a t h e a rs a yg e n e ra lly is i n a d m is s ib le b e c a u s e th e s ta te m e n t is n o t tru s tw o rt h y . U nit ed S t at es v. R ei l l y , 33 F . 3d 13 96 , 14 09 (3d C i r. 19 94 ). T hu s, i n som e cases the u se o f h ea rsayco u ld b e f

u n d am en tal lyu n fa ir . I n t hi s cas e, how ever , t he hea r s ayevi dence s ur el yw as pr obat i ve as i tw entt o the h e a rt o f th e c a se . M o re o v e r, w e se e n o re a so n to d o u b t it s re liab ili ty . A f ter a ll, E d w in C ruz w as admi t t i ng t o w r ongful conductw hen he ga ve hi s s t at ementchal l engi ng the bona fi des of hi s m arr i age a nd t he ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the gi vi ng of the s t at ement s ugges ti tw as acc ur at e. Fur t herm or e, i nas m uch as E dw i n C ruz i s a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen h e w a s n o t an d is n o t su b jec t to re m o v a l an d th u s it c o u ld n o t b e c o n ten d e d re a so n a b ly t hathe gave hi s s t at ementt o s eek f avor abl e tr eatm entfr om the I N S. M or eover , he w as p re se n t at th e h e a rin g b e f o re th e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e a n d a v a ilab le to tes tifya n d h e , in f a c t, di d s o. T hus , t he i m m i gr at i on j udge coul d and di d as cert ai n t he l egi t i m acyof hi s ear l i er s t at ement s t o G ur ka. C l ear l y , t her e w as nothi ng fundament al l yunfai ri n t he us e of G u rk a ’s e v id e n c e re g a rd in g E d w in C ru z ’s s tate m e n t. O n t he mer i t s of the ca s e w e s ee no r eas on t o di s turb t he det erm i nat i on of the i mmi g r a t i o n j u d g e . W e d o c o mme n t , h o we v e r , o n o n e p o i n t . I n h e rb r i e f , Cru z c l a i ms5

t hat“the I m m i gr at i on j udge ef fec t i vel ys hi ft ed the bur den of pr oof fr om the governm ent ont o M s . C ruz. ” Pet i t i oner ’ s br . at10. T hi s s t at ementi s s i m pl ynotcorr ect . R ather , t he j udge ana l y zed a l l of the evi dence and conc l uded, qui t e r eas onabl y , “thatthe G overnm ent has m eti t s bur den. ” A pp. at16. A tbot t om , thi s i s a cl as s i c fa ct - bas ed fr audul ent m arr i age c as e w hi ch w as adj udi cat ed i n a mannercompl et el yfai rt o C ruz and i n w hi ch w e c a n n o t u n d e r o u r s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w d is tu rb th e re s u lt. T he pet i t i on forr evi ew of the or derand dec i s i on of the B I A ent er ed J une 10, 2004, w i l l be deni ed.