Opinion ID: 2648824
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Level of Intent Required for “Purpose of

Text: Evading the Immigration Laws” v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark, 336 F.3d 260, 271 (3d Cir. 2003) (“Even if the District Court applied the wrong standard of review, we may still uphold its decision if correct under the appropriate standard of review.”). 7 The Eids’ first argument is that the BIA’s rejection of their I-130 Petition was improper because the statutory bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c)4 did not apply. It states in pertinent part: [N]o petition shall be approved if (1) the alien has previously been accorded, or has sought to be accorded, an immediate relative or preference status as the spouse of a citizen of the United States . . . by reason of a marriage determined by the Attorney General to have been entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws .... 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) (emphasis added). At base is the level of intent necessary for a marriage to be “for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.” The Eids argue specific intent to break immigration laws is required. The BIA, in contrast, concluded that Eid and Pickett’s “admissions that their marriage was entered for the sole purpose of procuring the beneficiary’s lawful status in the United States are sufficient basis” to trigger the § 1154(c) bar (emphasis added). We defer to the BIA’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) pursuant to Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). See INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 424 (1999); Sarango v. Att’y Gen., 651 F.3d 380, 383 (3d Cir. 2011). Under the familiar Chevron analysis, we ask first “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If so, courts, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” United States v. Geiser, 527 F.3d 288, 4 This provision is also referred to as Section 204(c), based on its location in the Immigration and Nationality Act. We refer to it as § 1154(c) throughout. 8 292 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Chen v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 221, 224 (3d Cir. 2004)) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). If, however, the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the question at issue, we give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” Id. (quoting Chen, 381 F.3d at 224) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, our first task is to determine whether the statutory language “for the purpose of evading” is ambiguous on the question of intent. Our review for ambiguity “must begin with the text of the statute.” Swallows Holding, Ltd. v. C.I.R., 515 F.3d 162, 170 (3d Cir. 2008). The INA does not define the terms “purpose” or “evade.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a). When words are left undefined, we have turned to “standard reference works such as legal and general dictionaries in order to ascertain” their ordinary meaning. Geiser, 527 F.3d at 294. A person’s “purpose” is “something that [he or she] sets before himself [or herself] as an object to be attained: an end or aim to be kept in view” – it is “an object, effect, or result aimed at, intended, or attained.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged 1847 (1981). To “evade” is to “give someone the slip[,] . . . to manage to avoid the performance of (an obligation),” or to “circumvent” or “dodge.” Id. at 787. We could read the visa bar in § 1154(c) to apply only when the “object, effect, or result aimed at” in getting married was to violate the immigration laws. This interpretation is consistent with the Eids’ assertion that § 1154(c) requires a specific intent to violate the law. But § 1154(c) also supports a reading under which specific intent is not required, a reading adopted by the only Court of Appeals to have directly considered the issue. See Salas-Velasquez v. INS, 34 F.3d 705, 707-08 (8th Cir. 1994). This interpretation is also reasonable, because the intended result of a faux marriage is 9 not to violate the law per se, but to obtain an immigration benefit to which a person is not otherwise entitled. Other circuit courts have suggested that intent to enter into a marriage solely to obtain immigration benefits is sufficient to trigger § 1154(c) without specifically distinguishing this intent from intent to evade the immigration laws. See, e.g., United States v. Islam, 418 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 2005) (“To obtain permanent residency, however, an alien must verify he entered into the marriage in good faith and not for the purpose of procuring his admission as an immigrant.” (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c); 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(b)(1)(A)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1186(d)(1)(A)(i)(III))); Ferrante v. INS, 399 F.2d 98, 104 (6th Cir. 1968) (“What he did with respect to the marriage was done with the intent to gain nonquota status and not for the purpose of entering into a continuing bona fide marriage.” (interpreting a previous version of § 1154(c))). Because we believe that the statute is ambiguous with respect to the question of intent, we defer to the BIA’s reasonable interpretation and hold that when the Attorney General determines that an alien was accorded or sought to be accorded immediate relative or preference status on the basis of a marriage entered into solely to obtain immigration benefits, no additional evidence of intent is necessary to subject an alien to the bar of § 1154(c). This determination requires “substantial and probative” evidence of an attempt to receive immigration benefits based on a false marriage. See Matter of Tawfik, 20 I. & N. Dec. 166, 167 (BIA 1990). The Eids have never claimed that there is not substantial evidence that Eid and Pickett married to obtain immigration benefits. To the contrary, they have repeatedly acknowledged that the marriage was entirely a means to obtain the immigration benefit of permanent residency for Eid. The Eids argue nonetheless that grave consequences such as removal should not follow from what they describe as 10 a minor violation under the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex. See, e.g., In re Hammond, 27 F.3d 52, 57 n.7 (3d Cir. 1994) (“The Latin means: ‘The law does not care for, or take notice of, very small or trifling matters. The law does not concern itself about trifles.’” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 388 (5th ed. 1979))). However, a marriage entered into solely to obtain immigration benefits not otherwise available without the marriage has as its purpose the evasion of immigration laws, and that triggers the bar of § 1154(c). While false statements, third-party involvement, and the exchange of money may be common markers of a sham marriage, they are not necessary under the statute to make that conclusion. Their absence does not render de minimis an unequivocal violation such as that of Eid and Pickett. Moreover, that Eid did not receive permanent residence, and that at the time of his I-485 Application he possessed a valid H1-B visa (a non-immigrant employer-sponsored visa for foreign workers in specialized occupations), fail to make the violation de minimis; the statute requires neither actually receiving immigration benefits nor immediately needing them. In any event, Eid did receive “an immediate relative or preference status as the spouse of a citizen of the United States” when Pickett’s I-130 Petition was granted, the exact immigration benefit § 1154(c) references. The bottom line is that, under the inflexible language of § 1154(c), merely seeking the benefit of immediate relative or preference status based on a sham marriage results in the automatic rejection of an I-130 Petition. Hence the BIA’s denial of the Eids’ de minimis argument was neither arbitrary nor capricious.