Unpub. IJ 212(k) Waiver Victory

Unpub. IJ 212(k) Waiver Victory

Cyrus D. Mehta writes: "The issue in this case was whether the Respondent, who was issued an Immigrant Visa, could be admitted even though his US citizen spouse indicated at the airport that she wished to withdraw the I-130 petition, which she did three days later.  Respondent was charged with inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I).  Alternatively, could the Respondent be eligible for a waiver under INA section 212(k)?  IJ McManus denied Respondent’s motion to terminate on the ground that he was admissible, but found the Respondent to be eligible for the 212(k) waiver as he  was unaware of the ground of inadmissibility before he embarked upon his journey to the US.  This case should be contrasted with Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458 (BIA 1987), which is controlling.  In Aurelio, the petitioner’s death resulting in the revocation of the I-130 petition did not entitle the respondent to a 212(k) waiver as the respondent should have known about the inadmissibility arising out of the death of her father one year prior to her departure.  The IJ found in this case, unlike in Aurelio, that Respondent could not have possibly known that his spouse would revoke the I-130 petition three days after his arrival in the US.  Respondent was eager to embark on a new life in the US with his spouse and could not have known of the steps she was planning to take to withdraw the I-130 petition.  Moreover,  Respondent also merited a favorable exercise of discretion as the IJ credited Respondent's testimony that he did not abuse his spouse in India, and agreed that several allegations made against Respondent at the airport and elsewhere may not have been truthful.  The decision concludes as follows, “While the Court cannot know why Ms. [redacted] took such dramatic steps to withdraw the I-130 petition that she filed on Respondent’s behalf, the Court is troubled by the seemingly false statements made by Ms. [redacted] to various immigration officials, and agrees with Respondent’s counsel that it was improper for her to attempt to manipulate the immigration process in the manner that she did.”  The government did not appeal the decision." - Matter of X-, Nov. 2012.