| IN a recent case, the Second Circuit Court
of Appeal (which is one level below the U.S. Supreme Court)
ruled that a person who commits fraud should not be
automatically or conclusively ineligible for a visa.
Instead, the person should be given the opportunity or
chance to show that their misrepresentation was not
“material,” and/or that they were otherwise entitled to the
visa under the “true facts.” If the alien can successfully
“rebut the presumption” of “materiality” or ineligibility,
then their fraud would not disqualify them from obtaining
their immigration benefit, (such as a visa or green card).
This case could have far-reaching effects for aliens
found to have committed fraud, as it means that if the alien
can properly package, document and present their case, they
could possibly overcome their fraud ineligibility.
In that particular case, the alien had married a U.S.
citizen, but had falsely represented that he and his wife
continued to live together, when in fact, they had been
separated for months. The alien was charged with fraud for
having “procured a benefit by fraud or by willfully
misrepresenting a material fact.” He was then placed in
removal proceedings.
Both the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) concluded that the alien’s false
representations were “material.” (According to the U.S.
Supreme Court, “a concealment or misrepresentation is
material if it ‘has a natural tendency to influence or was
capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making
body to which it was addressed.’”) In other words, did the
misrepresentation influence the immigration officer into
granting a particular immigration benefit?
The Court stated, however, that even if a
misrepresentation is considered “material,” an alien should
still be given the chance or opportunity to show that he or
she did, in fact, meet the statutory qualifications (or was
nevertheless entitled to the visa or other immigration
benefit), notwithstanding the misrepresentation. In this
particular case, the Court found that the alien’s
misrepresentation concerning his living arrangements was
“material.” However, he should have been given the
opportunity to show that he was nevertheless entitled to the
immigration benefit notwithstanding his misrepresentation.
(In that particular case, the alien could have still been
eligible by demonstrating that his marriage was bona fide,
and that even had he disclosed he was living apart, he would
have still qualified for the green card.)
There are so many other instances or situations where
people commit fraud or misrepresentations, such as providing
a different name, different date of birth, altered education
or experience, and the like. This recent case provides an
opportunity for such aliens to possibly “clear their name,”
by demonstrating eligibility for a green card, by showing
that they would have nevertheless been entitled to the
immigration benefit under the true information, such as
their real name, real date of birth, actual work experience,
etc.
Even the State Department has standing instructions that
if an alien made a misrepresentation in applying for a visa,
they should likewise be afforded the opportunity to
demonstrate that they were nevertheless eligible for the
visa, or had they told the truth, they would have still
qualified for the visa:
“Once it has been established that a misrepresentation
was made in securing a visa, the burden is on the person
making the misrepresentation to establish that the facts
support eligibility or that, had the consular officer known
the truth, a refusal of a visa could not properly have been
made. The consular officer shall be receptive to any further
evidence the alien may provide in order to ensure that a
proper finding has been made.” (Emphasis added.)
That is why it is important that if somebody has been
accused of fraud, they should seek the advice of a reputable
attorney, who can evaluate the alleged misrepresentation,
whether it is considered material, and possibly assist the
alien in “rebutting the presumption” of visa ineligibility
| (Editor’s note:
Michael J. Gurfinkel
has been an attorney for over 25 years, and is an active
member of the State Bar of California and New York, as
well as the American Immigration Lawyers Association and
the Immigration Section of the Los Angeles County Bar
Association. He has always excelled in school:
valedictorian in high school; cum laude at UCLA; and law
degree honors and academic scholar at Loyola Law School,
which is one of the top law schools in California. Website:
www.gurfinkel.com
Four offices to serve you:
LOS ANGELES: 219 North Brand Boulevard,
Glendale, California, 91203
Telephone: (818) 543-5800
SAN FRANCISCO: 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 460, South San
Francisco, CA 94080
Telephone: (650) 827-7888
NEW YORK: 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2101,
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 808-0300
PHILIPPINES: Heart Tower, Unit 701, 108
Valero Street, Salcedo Village, Makati, Philippines 1227
Telephone: 894-0258 or 894-0239
This is for informational purposes only,
and reflects the firm’s opinions and views on general
issues. Each case is different and results may depend on the
facts of a particular case. All immigration services are
provided by an active member of the State Bar of California
and/or by a person under the supervision of an active member
of the State Bar. No prediction, warranty or guarantee can
be made about the results of any case. Should you need or
want legal advice, you should consult with and retain
counsel of your own choice.) |
|