U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF A-B-

APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: APR.I0.2018

PETITION: FORM 1·360, PETITION FOR AMERASIAN, WIDOW(ER), OR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT

The Petitioner, a citizen of Moldova, seeks immigrant classification as an abused spouse of a U.S. ctttzen. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 204(a)(l )(A)(iii), 8 U.S. C. § 1154(a)(l )(A)(iii) (outlining eligibility for classification as an abused spouse). Under the Violence Against Women Act (VA WA), an abused spouse may self-petition as an immediate relative rather than remain with or rely upon an abuser to secure immigration benefits.

The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the Form 1-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant (VA WA petition), concluding that the record did not establish, as required, that the Petitioner resided with her former spouse 1 during the marriage and that she entered into her marriage in good faith.

On appeal, the Petitioner submits a legal brief arguing that the Director failed to properly consider and give appropriate weight to the submitted evidence, but does not provide any additional evidence.

Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LAW

A petitioner may self-petition for immigrant classification if that individual demonstrates, among other requirements, he or she entered into marriage with a U.S. citizen spouse in good faith. Section 204(a)(1 )(A)(iii)(I) of the Act. A petitioner also musi show that he or she resided with the abusive spouse during the marriage. Section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii)(II) of the Act.

A petitioner must prove eligibility for the requested immigration benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. Maller ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Although a petitioner may submit any evidence for us to consider, we determine, in our sole discretion, the credibility of and the weigh! to give all of the evidence. Section 204(a)(l)(J) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(i).

1 An abused spouse may receive protection under VA W A where the marriage was terminated within the two-year period prior to filing the VA WA petition and the petitioner demonstrates a connection between the termination and the battery or extreme cruelty oft he U.S. citizen spouse. Section 204(a)(I)(A)(iii)(ll)(aa)(CC)(ccc) of the Act.

.

Maner of A-B-

II. ANALYSIS

A. Joint Residence

A VA WA petit~oner is not required to be living with the abuser when the VA WA petition is tiled, but he or she must have resided with the abuser in the past. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(l)(v). Evidence of joint residence may include employment, school, or medical records; documents relating to housing, such as deeds, mortgages, rental records, or utility receipts; birth certiti cates of children; insurance policies; or any other credible evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(iii ). The determination of the credibility and the weight accorded to evidence is within the sole discretion of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USClS). Section 204(a)(l )(.1) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(i).

On her VA W A petition, the Petitioner indicated that she resided with A-B-,2 from July 2014 until August 14, 2014, and that their last residence was on in New York. In support of her VA WA petition, the Petitioner submitted documents listing the Petitioner and A-B­at the address, such as a Hospital Bill, a Cable bill, an Internal Revenue Service Form W-2, Domestic Incident Reports, and miscellaneous correspondence addressed to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's own statement, however, provides few supporting details to establish her claims of a joint residence with A-B-.

The Petitioner's statement submitted before the Director indicated that she lived with A-8- from July 2014 until August 2014. She furt her explained that prior to their marriage, she stayed overnight at A-8-'s house, where hi s adult son lived, and she also invited A-8- to her home in on occasion. She described moving her belongings and furniture into A-8-'s home several days before their wedding; however, she did not otherwise elaborate on this transition to living together such as providing a description of her be longings or those of A-8-. She asserted that following the marriage, A-B- became jealous whenever she left the home, and that A-B- worked long hours and would call her at the home phone number to prove to him that she was there. She maintained that A-8- forcibly evicted her from the home in August 2014. She related that she stayed with friends afterwards and later returned to retrieve her belongings and furniture. The Petitioner further claimed that A-B­owed large debts on the home. Other than as it relates to her claim of abuse, the Petitioner did not provide any spec ific discussion regarding living with A-8-, which could include a description of their daily routines at the residence, their shared belongings, and whether A-8-'s son (who is the same age as the Petitioner) continued to live at the residence after the marriage.

On appeal, the Petitioner does not submit further evidence concerning her residence with A-B-. The Petitioner generally asserts that the previous ly submitted evidence was sufficient to demonstrate eligibility under VA W A. The Petitioner further claims that the Domestic Incident Report from August 14, 2014, demonstrates shared residence because it retlected that both parties were present at the scene and the report stated that the couple was living together. The August 25, 2014 report, meanwhile, stated that the Petitioner requested help in picking up her belongings and that although the couple no longer lived together, they had in the past. While these reports documented two incidents witnessed by responding officers, they are outweighed by the lack of probative details in

2 Initials are used throughout this decision to protect the identity of the individ ua l.

2

.

Matter of A -B-

the Petitioner's own statement concerning her claimed marital residence with A-B-. Therefore, although the record does contain some documentation listing the Petitioner and A-B- at the

residence, she has not provided, for instance, a description of the home, their routines and activities there, or any other specific details about their shared lite at the claimed marital residence. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that she resided vvith A-B- during their marriage as section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii)(ll)(dd) ofthe Ac~ requires.

B. Good-Faith Entry into Marriage

Evidence of a good-faith marriage may include documents showing the spouses listed each other on insurance policies, leases, tax terms, or bank accounts; evidence regarding their courtship, wedding

·ceremony, shared residence and experiences; birth certificates of any children born to petitioner and his or her spouse; police reports, medical records, or court documents; afftdavits from individuals with personal knowledge of the relationship: and other credible evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(vii). USCIS has the sole discretion to determine the credibility of and the weight accorded to-all evidence. Section 204(a)(l)(J) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(i).

With her VA W A petition, to support her claim of a good-faith marriage, the Petitioner submitted several documents, including an engagement ring receipt, greeting cards from A-B- to the Petitioner, screen captures of undated text messages between the Petitioner and A-B~, various hotel receipts, bank account statements, photographs of the couple, and a psychological evaluation. Again, however, her personal statement provided limited details about her intent upon marrying A-B-. The Petitioner related that she and A-B- met when she was·moonlighting as a waitress, but she did not provide a date of their first meeting. She generally stated that it was "love at first sight," and that, "despite the fact that [A-B-] \vas much older than [her] ... [he] was an epitome of masculinity and maturity." She indicated that they began trading text messages, followed by dates, gifts, and spending weekends together in New Jersey, but did not elaborate on any specific occasion. The Petitioner related that in July 2014, A-B- unexpectedly proposed to her at his birthday party. She stated that she was shocked because she had no idea A-B- was so serious about their relationship and maintained that she agreed to marry because she thought she would be happy with A-B-. The Petitioner did not further describe their engagement, courtship, and times spent together prior to their marriage. Further, other than stating that they were congratulated by friends and acquaintances and that the day was memorable, the Petitioner offered no discussion of the wedding ceremony, celebration, and life together after their marriage.

Following her eviction from A-B-·s home in August, the Petitioner related that they reunited at the end of October, looked for an apartment in Brooklyn together, and spent a night together at a hotel in Manhattan, but she did not provide further details to explain the circumstances of how they reconciled or the length of time that they spent together. She also described taking subsequent trips with A-B- to Connecticut and Florida; however, she described them primarily in terms of the alleged battery and extreme cruelty.

On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director should have considered the Domestic Incident Reports as evidence of the Petitioner's good-faith marriage to A-B- because the observations from

3

.

Mauer of A-13-

the police officers demonstrated that the Petitioner was living with her spouse at the residence. We acknowledge the . reports as related to the Petitioner' s claims of battery and extreme cruelty by A-B-, as wei! as listing the Petitioner at the residence. However, the reports carry tittle evidentiary weight of the Petitioner's good-faith intent to marry A-8- because they do not otTer any insight into the Petitioner's state of mind at the Lime of marriage. The Petitioner similarly argues that the photographs submitted demonstrate her good-faith marriage to A-B- as they show the Petitioner and A-B- "holding themselves out to the public as a couple[,]" sharing experiences, and enjoying each other. However, as indicated above, the Petitioner herself has not described any particular occasion spent with A-8- in any' specitlc detail, and the photographs are undated and do not contain any description by the Petitioner of the particular event or occasion captured in the photograph. As such, the photographs are o f limited evidentiary value in demonstrating the Petitioner's intent at the time of marriage, particularly when weighed against the lack of probative details in the Petitioner's statements.

The Petitioner further claims that the undated screen captures of text messages show the dynamic of the relationship that is consistent with a bona fide marriage. However, while the text messages cited by the Petitioner on appeal from A-B- to the Petitioner show A-8-'s feelings about the Petitioner and theil" marriage, they are.not sufficient to show the Petitioner's own feellngs and her good-faith intent to man-y. The Petitioner also argues that her psychological evaluation was not properly considered in the context of a good-faith marriage and claims that the psychologist's tinding that her "attitude towards the interview is genuine and earnest[,)" supports the credibility of the Petitioner's overall account of the relationship. However, the psychological evaluation does not specifically address the Petitioner's good-faith intent. Rather, the evaluation focused on the incidents of abuse that occurred during the marriage, but only briefly addressed the Petitioner's and A-8- 's initial meeting, courtship, and marriage.

In response to the Director not according any ·weight to the evidence of the Per1tioner's shared bank account with A-B-, the Petitioner alleges that the statements only became available to her when A-S­agreed· to turn over some of her belongings and mail after he evicted her from the home. She further asserts that as A-B- owned the home there were no rent payments and that he became delinquent on joint utilities after he evicted her. She argues that bank statements and utility bills are evidence that A-8- joined the Petitioner with his accounts. We acknowledge that a petilioner can face difficulties in obtai ning documentary evidence in a domestic violence relationship and that the Petitioner has submincd some documentation demonstrating joint accounts and utilities. However, the Petitioner herself has not provided sufficient detail in her statements about hO\\' her relationship with A-B­began and progressed to marriage in order to support her claim of a good-faith marriage.

In sum, although the Petitioner has submitted some evidence of shared financ ial responsibilities, she did not describe their courtship, engagement, marriage ceremony, post-ceremony celebration, and life together after the marriage, in any specific and probative details, except as it related to her claim of abuse . The record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner entered into marriage with A-8- in good faith, as section 204(a)(I)(A)(iii)(I)(aa) ofthe Act requires.

4

Maller of A-8-

III. CONCLUSION

The Petitioner has submitted insufficient evidence to establish joint residency with her U.S. citizen spouse, and that she entered into the marriage in good faith. She has therefore not established her eligibility for VA W A immigrant classification.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Maller ofA-B-, ID# 01025327 (AAO Apr. 10, 2018)

5