Sang Chul Bark v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
511 F.2d 1200 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence that a married couple separated after their wedding, standing alone, is insufficient to support a finding that the marriage was a sham for immigration purposes. The primary inquiry must be focused on whether the parties intended to establish a life together at the time they were married.
Facts:
- Petitioner and his wife were sweethearts in their native Korea before the wife immigrated to the United States and became a resident alien.
- Petitioner came to the U.S. in August 1968, first as a business visitor and then as a student.
- The couple renewed their acquaintance in the U.S. and were married in Hawaii in May 1969.
- At a hearing on Petitioner's application for adjustment of status, both he and his wife testified that they married for love.
- The couple admitted that after their marriage, they quarreled and separated.
- Their testimony regarding the timing and extent of their separation was conflicting.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner's wife filed a petition with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to classify him as the spouse of a resident alien.
- Petitioner filed an application for adjustment of status to permanent resident.
- Following a hearing, an Immigration Judge denied the application, concluding the marriage was a sham.
- Petitioner appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
- The BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge's decision, finding the marriage was not bona fide.
- Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does evidence that a married couple separated after their wedding, standing alone, provide a sufficient basis to find that their marriage was a sham for the purpose of denying an adjustment of status under the Immigration and Nationality Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Hufstedler, J.
No. Evidence of separation, standing alone, cannot support a finding that a marriage was not bona fide when it was entered. A marriage is a sham only if the parties did not intend to establish a life together at the time they were married. The court reasoned that post-marriage conduct is relevant only to the extent that it illuminates the parties' subjective intent at the time of the marriage. Relying solely on the fact of separation is arbitrary, as common experience shows that couples in genuine marriages separate for a multitude of reasons, such as military service, education, or domestic difficulties. The government cannot require aliens to have more conventional or successful marriages than citizens, nor can it regulate their chosen lifestyles. The proper inquiry must focus on the parties' intent at the inception of the marriage, not on the marriage's subsequent success or failure.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the evidentiary standard for determining marriage fraud in immigration cases. It establishes that the government cannot rely on a single, post-nuptial fact, like separation, to invalidate a marriage. Instead, immigration authorities must undertake a more holistic inquiry into the couple's subjective intent at the time of the marriage. This precedent protects individuals in non-traditional or troubled marriages from being unfairly deemed fraudulent, shifting the focus from the outcome of the marriage to its initial bona fides.
