Interim Decision #2029 

MATTER OF OLIVEIRA 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-14678566 

Decided by Board March 6, 1970 

In a finding of deportability under section 241(c) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, the Woodby burden of proof is met by clear, unequivocal 

and convincing evidence that the alien's marriage took place less than 2 

years prior to his entry, and that the marriage was judicially terminated 

within 2 years after entry. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Sections 291 (a) (2) and 241 (c) [8 U.S.C. 1251 (a) (2) 

and 1251 (c) ]—Entered with visa procured through 

marriage fraud. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT' 

Arlin W. Hargreaves, Esquire 

30 Hotaling Place 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Robert S. Bixby, Esquire 

(Brief filed) 

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

R. A. Vielhaber 

Appellate Trial Attorney 

Stephen M. Suffin 

Trial Attorney 

(Brief filed) 

The case comes forward on appeal from the decision of the special inquiry officer who found respondent deportable as charged 

and ordered that he be deported to Portugal. There was no request for voluntary departure. 

The respondent is a 32-year-old divorced male alien, a native 

and citizen of Portugal, who entered the United States at New 

York on February 27, 1965, being then admitted as a nonquota 

immigrant upon presentation of an immigrant visa issued to him 

as the spouse of a United States citizen. His marriage, which took 

place at Lisbon, Portugal on December 18, 1964, was to one Rose 

Marie Vasquez, a native born citizen of the United States. Both 

testified that the marriage was consummated and that the day 

following the wedding she returned to the United States. Respondent followed ten weeks later. They never lived together in 

503 
Interim Decision #2029 

the United States. The marriage was terminated by divorce on 

October 7,1966. 

The special inquiry officer found respondent deportable under 

sections 241 (a) (2) and 241 (c) of the Act as one who entered the 

United States with a visa procured through a marriage fraud. 

The applicable portion of section 241 (c) is as follows: 

An alien shall be deported as having procured a visa or other documentation by fraud within the meaning of paragraph (19) of section 212(a), and 

to he in the United States in violation of this Act within the meaning of 

subsection (a) (2) of this section, if (1) hereafter he or she obtains any 

entry into the United States with an immigrant visa or other documentation 

procured on the basis of a marriage entered into less than two years prior 

to such entry of the alien and which, within two years subsequent to any 

entry of the alien into the United States, shall be judicially annulled or terminated, unless such alien shall establish to the satisfaction of the .4 ttorney 

General that such marriage was not contracted for the purpose of evading 

any provisions of the immigration laws. (Emphasis supplied.) 

An initial question was raised by counsel as to what standard 

of proof must be met by the Service in finding respondent deportable under section 241 (c) of the Act. Counsel argues that the 

standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Woodby 

v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966) (where deportation was predicated 

on section 241 (a) (2) of the Act), that no deportation order may 

be entered unless it is found by clear, unequivocal and convincing 

evidence that the facts supporting deportation are true, is equally 

applicable to the deportation proceedings in the instant case 

under section 241 (c) . 1With this we agree. 

The Government in the case before us has met its burden of 

proof by showing by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence 

that: (1) respondent's marriage took place less than two years 

prior to his entry, and, (2) the marriage was judicially terminated within two years after entry. This being the case, the respondent then has the burden under section 241 (c) of coming forward with evidence sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption 

of said section that the visa was procured by fraud, by proving to 

the satisfaction of the Attorney General by a preponderance of 

evidence that the marriage was not entered into for the purpose 

of evading the immigration laws. 

The special inquiry officer has set forth in his opinion an exhaustive, chronological statement of the facts relative to respondFollowing the Woodby case, 8 CFR 242.14 (a) was promulgated, which is 

as follows: 

"A determination of deportability shall not he valid unless it is found 

by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as 

grounds for deportation are true." 

504 
Interim Decision #2029 

ent's marriage, and he concluded that respondent had failed to 

show by a preponderance of the evidence that the marriage was 

not entered into in order to evade the immigration laws. We 

reach the same conclusion. We do not deem it necessary to again 

detail all of the facts and circumstances surrounding this marriage, but state that we are in full agreement with the excellent 

analysis by the special inquiry officer that clearly shows that the 

respondent has failed to establish that the marriage was not for 

the purpose of evading the immigration laws. 

Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. 

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

hereby dismissed. 

505