Opinion ID: 1286409
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: proving the bona fides of ahmed's marriage

Text: The BIA also concluded that Ahmed's first motion would have been denied because, had she filed on time, she would not have been able to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that her marriage was bona fide. When a marriage is contracted during removal proceedings, the petitioner must overcome a regulatory presumption of fraud. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(1)(iii); see also Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir.2003). [A]n applicant must offer evidence that is probative of the motivation for marriage, not just the bare fact of getting married. To qualify, a marriage must be based on an actual and legitimate relationship rather than a subjective desire to adjust status based on marriage. Malhi, 336 F.3d at 994. Documents that can help establish the legitimacy of the marriage include: (1) Documentation showing joint ownership of property; (2) A lease showing joint tenancy of a common residence; (3) Documentation showing commingling of financial resources; (4) Birth certificate(s) of child(ren) born to the petitioner and beneficiary; (5) Affidavits of third parties having knowledge of the bona fides of the marital relationship...; [and] (6) Any other [relevant] documentation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(1)(iii)(B)(1)-(6). Although Ahmed submitted all of the recommended documents in support of her second motion, most of them post-dated the April date by which she ought to have filed. The only documents pre-dating April 2004 were (1) a copy of her marriage certificate and license; (2) the visa application; (3) photographs; and (4) one joint phone bill for $3.26 from March 2004. These documents were insufficient to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that her marriage was bona fide. See Malhi, 336 F.3d at 994. An attorney's unreasonable failure to investigate and present the factual and legal basis of ... [her client's] claim would itself amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. Lin, 377 F.3d at 1025. It is reasonable for ... [an alien] to assume that ... his paid representative ... would timely file critical motions in his case and advise him about what kind of information was needed in time for him to gather it. Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 900-01 (emphasis added). In determining the existence of prejudice, the panel may examine facts uncovered by new counsel. Lin, 377 F.3d at 1024. Getachew never advised Ahmed how to collect the necessary evidence; all she requested was a wedding photograph. The government argues that, even with effective counsel, Ahmed could not have collected the necessary records. It is certainly possible that Ahmed and Sabir were not engaged in an actual and legitimate relationship in early 2004. Perhaps it only became bona fide in subsequent years. Ahmed's I-130 petition, however, has been approved, and she has now provided a wealth of records proving the legitimacy of her marriage. Because Ahmed need only show plausible grounds for relief, the BIA erred in concluding that Ahmed's first motion to reopen would have been denied. [3]