Court Opinion

ID: 9451013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:03:27.560943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:32.075083
License: Public Domain

J. JOSEPH SMITH,
Circuit Judge (dissenting):
I dissent. While I agree that the purported marriage was invalid for immigration purposes, I think that we should give 241(f) an interpretation in keeping with its humanitarian purpose of ameliorating the harshness of the deportation statutes as applied to the families of citizens. Interpreting “otherwise admissible” as referring to qualitative tests rather than quota numbers would properly carry out the purpose of the Act in cases such as this, and there is no solid evidence that the Congress intended so narrow an application as that adopted, in eifect carving out an exception to the relief where the fraud involved non-quota status.