Interim Decision *1720 

MAryER OF FERRANTE 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-12164106 

Decided by Board March, 81, 1967 

Where beneficiary's section 245 adjustment of status granted in 1961 upon 

approval of his tirst United States citizen wife's visa petition to Reenrd him 

nonquota status was rescinded in 1964 because the marriage was not bona tide, 

baying been entered into solely to obtain nonquota status, he comes within the 

provisions of section 204(c) of the Act, as amended; hence, the order of the 

District Director revoiang approval of a ffabseanent visa petition (19(16) to 

accord beneficiary immediate relative status on the basis of his present marriage to a United States citizen is approved. 

ON renr/Lia,oc Farm/mess1: 

Henry C. Lavine, Esquire 

1013 Williamson Building 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114 

(Oral argument) 

ON BEHALF or SERVICE 

B. A. Vielbaber 

Appellate Trial Attorney 

(Oral argument) 

Thomas M. Pederson 

District Director 

(Brief filed) 

The case tomes forward on appeal from the order of the District 

Director, Cleveland District, dated November 18, 1966 revoking the 

approval of the visa petition approved on September 13, 1966 under 

the provisions of section 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(c)) as more fully set forth in an accompanying 

order dated November 15, 1966. 

The petitioner, a native of Italy, a citizen of the United States by 

naturalization on August 20, 1965, filed a visa petition seelriuf immediate relative status on behalf of the beneficiary as her spouse. The 

visa petition was approved on September 13, 1966. It is now alleged 

that the approval of the visa petition was erroneous for the reason 

which will be more fully set forth below. 

Tho record shows that the beneficiary entered the United States on 

August 22, 1960 and was admitted as a temporary visitor for pleasure. 

He married Ruth E. Moore, a United States citizen, on February 22, 

1961. She filed a visa petition for nonquota status on behalf of the 

166 
Interim Decision #1720 

beneficiary which was approved on May 17, 1961 and an application 

for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, as amended, was approved on November 7, 1961. The 

beneficiary divorced Ruth Moore on June 1, 1962. Ruth Moore's prior 

marriages had been terminated by divorce on June 13, 1947 and on 

September 6, 1957. Evidence was presented that the beneficiary's wife, 

Ruth, lived with one Charles C. Lowe since January or February 1961 

and that this relationship continued at the time the case was before us 

on June 26, 1964 in an appeal from the order of the special inquiry 

officer dated March 13, 1964 ordering the adjustment of status of the 

beneficiary on the basis of his marriage to Ruth Moore be rescinded. 

In our order of June 26, 1964, we reviewed all the evidence fully, stated 

that a determination as to the data of the commencement of the common law relationship of Ruth Moore and Charles Lowe was not pertinent to the case, concluded that the marriage entered into by the 

beneficiary was not a bona fide marriage but was entered into solely 

to obtain nonquota status for the beneficiary and must be deemed 

invalid for immigration purposes, rescinded the adjustment of status 

and dismissed the appeal from the order of the special inquiry officer. 

Deportation proceedings were instituted against the respondentbeneficiary and he was found deportable under section 241 (a) (2) (8 

U.S.C. 1251 (a) (2) ) as a visitor for pleasure who had remained longer. 

The special inquiry officer granted him the discretionary relief of 

voluntary departure in lieu of deportation with the automatic order 

of deportation in the event he failed to depart voluntarily as directed. 

The special inquiry officer held he lacked authority to reconsider the 

decision of 'the Beard of Immigration Appeals in the rescission proceedings, which could only be done upon motion to the Board to reopen 

or reconsider such prceedings. 

On appeal, this Board found no basis to reconsider the rescission 

proceedings and dismissed the appeal from the order of the special 

inquiry officer. However, the Board agreed that there was a preponderance of evidence that a common law marriage existed between Ruth 

and one Charles Lowe at the time the beneficiary married Ruth Lowe; 

and under the circumstances the Board stated for the record that there 

was no fraud in the inception on the part of the beneficiary when he 

allegedly married a United States citizen because that marriage was 

void ab intro. 

Counsel has seized upon this language to argue that the beneficiary 

is not barred by the provisions of section 204(c) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act which provides that no petition shall be approved 

if the alien has previously been accorded a nonquota or preference 

status as.the spouse of a United States citizen or the spouse of an alien 

167 
Interim Decision #1720 

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 the immigration laws. He argues that this finding 

of no fraud in the inception on the part of the beneficiary when he 

married his previous wife overcomes our previous finding. 

We do not agree. When we previously considered this case on 

June 26, 1961 in connection with an appeal from the order of rescission 

under section 216 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, we found. 

that the prior marriage entered into by the respondent-beneficiary was 

not a bona fide marriage but was entered into solely to obtain nonquota 

status for the respondent-beneficiary and must be deemed invalid for 

immigration. purposes. 

In our order of May 19, 1965 in deportation proceedings, we stated. 

that regardless of whether the respondent-beneficiary's marriage to a 

United States citizen was void ab initio because of an existing common law marriage of his citizen wife or whether it was not a bona fide 

marriage because entered into solely for the purpose of obtaining nonquota status for the respondent-beneficiary, the fact remained that in 

either event the respondent-beneficiary was not entitled to nonquota 

status based upon his marriage to a citizen of the United States.. We 

found the deportation order supported by substantial and credible 

evidence. In our order dated June 26, 1964 in rescission proceedings, 

we concluded that a determination as to the commencement of the 

common law relationship was not pertinent to the case. The reason for 

this statement was that we found that the respondent-beneficiary's 

prior marriage to a United States citizen spouse was contracted solely 

to facilitate his admission to the United States and did. not entitle him 

to the issuance of the nonquota visa. Where no bona Me husband-wife 

relationship was intended by the marriage, the marriage is deemed 

invalid for immigration purposes regardless of whether it would be 

considered valid under the domestic law of the jurisdiction where per -. 

formed. Matter of M—, 8 I. & N. Dec. 217. 

The thrust of the finding of a sham and invalid marriage is that 

despite the marriage ceremony, the parties did not intend to consider 

themselves as husband and wife and that where no bona fide husband 

and wife relationship is created, it floes not entitle the alien to the 

issuance of a nonquota visa.1The immigration law, which grants 

advantages to those who marry a United States citizen, refers not to 

taking of steps which enable a couple to live together in a marital 

relationship but to the marital relationship itself, an actual joining 

Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604; Giannoutias v. Landon, 226 F. 2d 358 

(9th Cir. 1955) ; United States v. Rubenstein, 151 F. 2d 915 (2nd Cir. 1945), cert. 

den. 326 U.S. 766. 

168 
Interim Decision #1720 

together as husband and wife. 2We have found that even in a case of 

a marriage in name only which is not bona fide, such a marriage is 

invalid for immigration purposes. We are unable to follow counsel's 

reasoning that a marriage which is void because of a prior existing 

marriage but which was entered into for the same purpose of evading 

the immigration laws and where no bona fide husband and wife 

relationship ever existed, or was ever intended, stands in any better 

position. Approval of the visa petition was properly revoked because 

of the bar of section 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(8 U.S.C. 1154 (c) ). The appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby 

dismissed. 

itoltl v. United States, 570 F. 2d 174 (9th Cir. 1986). 

169