PETERSON
12 I. & N. Dec. 663 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marriage is considered bona fide for immigration purposes if the evidence, considered in its totality, demonstrates the parties intended to establish a valid and lasting marital relationship. The specific motives for entering the marriage, such as companionship or caregiving, are not determinative so long as the marriage is not a sham entered into solely to circumvent immigration laws.
Facts:
- The petitioner, a 60-year-old U.S. citizen, was retired due to poor health and lived on social security and welfare assistance.
- He met the beneficiary, a 53-year-old citizen of Iran, through a mutual friend approximately a year and a half before their marriage.
- The petitioner needed a housekeeper, and the beneficiary needed a place to live.
- The parties married in Carson City, Nevada, on February 27, 1966.
- Following the marriage, the couple lived in the same house but occupied separate bedrooms, an arrangement they understood prior to marrying, partly due to the petitioner's poor health (emphysema).
- The petitioner stated he married the beneficiary to obtain a housekeeper but considered her his wife.
- The beneficiary stated that while not in love, she liked the petitioner, felt sorry for him due to his illness, and married him with the intention of taking care of him and staying with him for the rest of her life.
- The petitioner did not pay the beneficiary a salary but provided groceries, while the beneficiary used her own funds and money from her daughter for other expenses.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioner, a U.S. citizen, filed a visa petition with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) seeking to classify the beneficiary as his immediate relative spouse.
- On March 9, 1967, the INS District Director in San Francisco denied the petition, finding that a bona fide marriage did not exist.
- The petitioner appealed the denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
- On June 22, 1967, the BIA remanded the case to the District Director for further investigation, including questioning the beneficiary.
- After taking a sworn statement from the beneficiary, the District Director again denied the visa petition on January 11, 1968.
- The case was then certified to the Board of Immigration Appeals for a final decision on the matter.
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 a legally valid marriage, in which the parties do not cohabitate or consummate the relationship and where the petitioner's stated purpose for marrying was to obtain a housekeeper, constitute a bona fide marriage for the purpose of granting immediate relative status under immigration law?
Opinions:
Majority - Board of Immigration Appeals
Yes, a legally valid marriage under these circumstances constitutes a bona fide marriage for immigration purposes. The Board found that the key inquiry is whether the parties intended to establish a valid and lasting marital relationship, not whether the relationship conforms to an idealized model of marriage. The Board reasoned that the parties' circumstances—their advanced age and the petitioner's poor health—made the arrangement logical. The lack of sexual intercourse and separate living quarters were deemed insignificant in light of the petitioner's illness. The Board concluded there was no evidence of a sham marriage and that, once a bona fide marital relationship is established, the specific motive for entering the marriage is not a primary concern.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for broadening the definition of a 'bona fide' marriage in immigration law. It moves the legal inquiry away from external indicators, like sexual consummation or romantic motives, and toward the subjective intent of the parties to create a lasting union. The case establishes that marriages based on practical needs, such as companionship and caregiving, are valid as long as they are not fraudulent arrangements to evade immigration laws. This precedent provides crucial protection for non-traditional marriages, particularly those involving elderly individuals or persons with health issues, by focusing on the genuineness of the commitment rather than the form of the relationship.
