Opinion ID: 202065
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Grounds of Excludability

Text: 62 The BIA's ultimate determination that the Estradas were excludable was, far from being manifestly contrary to law, based on reasonable statutory interpretations and ample factual support. The charged grounds of excludability were 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i) 11 and (a)(7)(A)(i)(I). 12 The BIA reasonably interpreted § 1155 and concluded that nothing about the timing of P & B's withdrawal of the petition rendered the Estradas' labor certifications or immigrant visas automatically valid. The BIA cited its decision in Matter of Alarcon, 17 I. & N. Dec. 574, which rejected the argument that since [the alien] was not notified that her visa petition was revoked before she came to this country, her visa petition and, therefore, her visa were still valid. Id. at 575. Instead, the BIA said, the IJ should examine[] the applicant's visa to determine its validity, reaching a decision inherently involv[ing] scrutiny of the underlying visa petition and the relationship on which it depends. Id. at 576. If [the IJ] determines that a flaw exists in that relationship such that the alien was not actually entitled to the status which was accorded to him by the visa petition, the [IJ] may conclude that the visa is invalid. Id. This can hardly be said to be an unreasonable interpretation of the immigration statutes. 63 The Estradas fare no better with respect to the BIA's factual findings and application of law to facts. The BIA agreed with the IJ that the visas, visa petition, and labor certification were based on fraudulent information and were invalid. Estrada conceded that he forged the letter from P & B stating that he was employed, and the IJ found that if the true information about Estrada's employment situation had been submitted to the consulate, neither the labor certification nor the employment-based visas would have issued. We are hardly compelled to conclude to the contrary on this record, and we see no basis for saying that the decision that the Estradas were ineligible for admission to the United States was manifestly contrary to law. The Estradas' theory implies that one whose fraud goes undetected for a short while is entitled, simply because the INS did not detect the matter right away, to enter the United States and stay here indefinitely with an unrevokable visa, whatever its actual invalidity. We reject this theory.