|
K-1 (fiancé) visa holders come to the United States full of hope. They are coming to marry the person they love and are looking forward to a new life in the United States. Sometimes,
the marriage does not work out. Since the only way the non-citizen can
adjust status is through the marriage to the K petitioner, the fiancé
visa holder is left wondering what effect the divorce will have on
their new life in this country.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had long held that those who enter the United Stateson a K-1 (fiancé) visa can only adjust their status to that of
permanent resident if their marriage is still intact at the time of the
adjustment. Given how long it takes for
adjustment applications to be adjudicated in some parts of the country,
that can result in many K-1 visa holders being denied adjustment and
having to return home. Those who live in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes California) can adjust their status based on their marriage, even after the marriage ends in divorce.
Two cases have addressed this issue. The first case was Choin v. Mukasey. Yelena Choin entered the United States on a K visa as the fiancée of U.S. citizen Albert Tapia. After they were married, Choin filed an application to adjust her status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The application languished with the Immigration & Naturalization Service for two years. Just before the end of that two year period, Choin and Tapia were divorced. INS then denied Choin’s application for adjustment.
Homeland Security placed her in removal proceedings. The
Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied her
application for adjustment of status and ordered her removed. They all agreed that, as a result of her divorce, she was not eligible to adjust her status. They
said that the relevant adjustment statute required that the couple
still be married at the time of the initial grant of adjustment of
status.
The Ninth Circuit said the case turned on the meaning of the term “as a result of the marriage of the non-immigrant”. The Court said that the language of the statute is ambiguous. It
could mean that the marriage must exist on the date of adjustment or it
could mean that the application must be based on the fact of the
marriage.
In further
analyzing the relevant phrase, the Court acknowledged that the purpose
of the Immigration Marriage Fraud Act of 1986 (which created the
restriction on adjustment for K visa recipients) was to deter
immigration-related marriage fraud. It held that
nothing in the statute imposed a duration of marriage requirement.
Rather, it found that the statute imposed a requirement that the
marriage be entered into in good faith. Therefore,
as long as the K visa recipient timely married the petitioner in good
faith and applied for adjustment based on that marriage, the duration
of the marriage was irrelevant. Indeed, the parties did not need to still be married at the time of adjudication of the adjustment application.
In Strokous v. Mukasey, Natalyia Stokous came to the U.S. on a K-1 visa and married her petitioner Borus Bengel. They were divorced before she filed her application for permanent residence. USCIS denied her application for adjustment and the immigration judge found her to be removable. In relying upon the rationale in Choin, the Strokouscourt said that the fact that Strokous had divorced her husband prior
to filing for adjustment was not a valid reason to deny her application
for adjustment.
They held
that, because she had married her K-1 petitioner, she was eligible to
adjust her status on the basis of that marriage even though she was
divorced at the time she filed her adjustment application.
Divorce is difficult enough. Thankfully, in the Ninth Circuit, it may not mean the end of life in the United States for those who entered on a K-1 visa.
*** Author's
Note: The analysis and suggestions offered in this column do not create
a lawyer-client relationship and are not a substitute for the
individual legal research and personalized representation that is
essential to every case.
|