TAWFIK

Interim Decision #3130




                          MATTER OF TAWFIK

                 In Visa Petition Revocation Proceedings

                                     A-26653077

                    Decided by Board February 28, 1990

(1) In making a determination that a beneficiary's prior marriage comes within the
  purview of section 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

(c)
  (1988), as a marriage entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws,
  the district director should not give conclusive effect to determinations made in prior
  proceedings, but, rather, should reach an independent conclusion based on the
  evidence of record, although any relevant evidence may be relied upon, including
  evidence having its origin in prior service proceedings invulviag the beneficiary or in
  court proceedings involving the prior marriage.
(2) A decision to revoke approval of a visa petition because the beneficiary entered into
  a prior marriage for the primary purpose of obtaining immigration benefits can only
  be sustained if there is substantial and probative evidence in the alien's file to the
  effect that the prior marriage was entered into for such purpose, and, where the
                                 ,

  district director concluded that there was evidence in the record from which it could
  "reasonably be inferred" that a marriage had been entered into for the primary
  purpose of obtaining immigration benefits, the substantial and probative evidence,
  requisite to the revocation of a subsequently approved visa petition, was not
  presented.
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:                             ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
  Milton A. DeJesus, Esquire                            Harris L. Leatherwood
  P.O. Box 22634                                        General Attorney
  Little Rock, Arkansas 72221

BY: Milhollaa, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members



   The United States citizen petitioner applied for immediate relative
status for the beneficiary as her spouse under section 201(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 

(b) (1982). The
petition was approved on September 14, 1987. In a decision dated July
25, 1989, the district director revoked approval of the petition on the
ground that the beneficiary had previously attempted to be accorded
immediate relative status as the spouse of a United States citizen by
reason of a marriage determined by the Attorney General to have been
entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. The
                                          166
                                                             Interim Decision #3130

petitioner has appealed' , The appeal will be sustained and approval of
the visa petition will lie reinstated. The petitioner's request for oral
argument is denied. See 

(e) (1989).
   The beneficiary, a 40-year-old native and citizen of Egypt, married
the petitioner in 1987. The record reflects that this was his third
marriage, and his second marriage to a United States citizen.
 In the instant proceedings, the district director revoked the
beneficiary's approved visa petition, filed on his behalf by the
petitioner. Under section 205 of the Act, 

 (1982), the
Attorney General may revoke the approval of any visa petition
approved by him for what he deems to be "good and sufficient cause."
A notice of intention to revoke a visa petition is properly issued for
"good and sufficient cause" when the evidence of record at the time of
issuance, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the
visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of
proof. However, where a notice of intention to revoke is based upon an
unsupported statement, revocation of the visa petition cannot be
sustained. Matter of Arias, 

 (BIA 1988); Matter of
Estime, 

 (BIA 1987).
   The notice of intention to revoke the visa petition at issue here,
dated September 8, 1988, was issued based on the premise that the
beneficiary had previously "engaged in and sought status through a
marriage that was determined to have been entered into for the
purpose of evading immigration laws."
   Section 204(c) of the Act, 

(c) (1988), prohibits the
approval of a visa petition filed on behalf of an alien who has
attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of
evading the immigration laws. Accordingly, the district director must
deny any subsequent visa petition for immigrant classification filed on
behalf of such alien, regardless of whether the alien received a benefit
through the attempt or conspiracy. As a basis for the denial it is not
necessary that the alien have been convicted of, or even prosecuted for,
the attempt or conspiracy. However, the evidence of such attempt or
conspiracy must be documented in the alien's file and must be
substantial and probative Matter of Kahy, 19 ISEN Dec. 803 (BIA
1988); Matter of Agdinaoay, 

 (BIA 1978); Matter of
La Grotta, 

 (BIA 1972); 

(a)(2)(iv)
(1989).
  1 The Immigration and Naturalization Service has requested that this appeal be
dismissed based on the fact that the beneficiary's name, along with that of the petitioner,
appears on the Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (Form I -290A)_
That request will be denied. An appeal creating Board jurisdiction to review this case on
the merits has been filed by the petitioner. See Matter of Sano, 19 1&N Dec. 299 (BIA
1985).

                                           167
Interim Decision #3130

   Neither section 204(c) of the Act nor the regulations specify who
may make the Attorney General's decision in such matters and at what
point it is to be made. However, we have held that the determination is
to be made on behalf of the Attorney General by the district director in
the course of his adjudication of the subsequent visa petition. Matter
of Samsen, 

 (BIA 1974).
   In making that adjudication, the district director may rely on any
relevant evidence, including evidence having its origin in prior Service
proceedings involving the beneficiary, or in court proceedings involv-
ing the prior marriage. Ordinarily, the district director should not give
conclusive effect to determinations made in a prior proceeding, but,
rather, should reach his own independent conclusion based on the
evidence before him. See Matter of F-, 

 (BIA 1962).
However, for example, in a case where the beneficiary has previously
been found deportable based on a determination, supported by clear,
unequivocal, and convincing evidence, that that beneficiary became a
party to a fraudulent marriage for the purpose of entering the United
States as an immigrant, it would he appropriate for the district director
to rely on that finding of deportability in a determination that the
beneficiary would be precluded by section 204(c) of the Act from
obtaining an immigration benefit by virtue of a subsequent marriage.
Matter of Agdinaoay, supra.
   In this case, the district director noted that the evidence showing
that the beneficiary had entered into a marriage for the purpose of
evading the immigration laws had been "sufficient to warrant the
denial of the petition" filed by the beneficiary's former United States
citizen spouse, and, on that basis, the previously approved visa
petition, filed by the beneficiary's current United States citizen spouse,
was revoked on July 25, 1989. It is to be noted, however, that in the
determination of the first visa petition submitted on behalf of the
beneficiary, it was not found that the beneficiary had attempted or
conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the
immigration laws. Rather, the district director involved in the
determination of that petition noted that the record contained
evidence, which had not been rebutted, "from which it [could]
reasonably be inferred" that the beneficiary entered into a marriage for
the primary purpose of obtaining immigration benefits. Such a
reasonable inference does not rise to the level of substantial and
probative evidence requisite to the preclusion of approval of a visa
petition in accordance with section 204(c) of the Act.
   Since, with respect to the first visa petition submitted on behalf of
the respondent, there was no affirmative finding that the marriage was
entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws,
resolution of whether the visa petition revocation can be sustained will
                                   168
                                                  Interim Decision #3130

depend on a determination of whether there is, at present, sufficient
evidence, inclusive of evidence relied upon in the determination of the
first visa petition, to support the contention that the beneficiary's
previous marriage to a United States citizen was entered into for
purposes of evading the immigration laws.
   The beneficiary's first marriage to a United States citizen took place
in 1985. The Petition to Classify Status of Alien Relative for Issuance
of Immigrant Visa (Form 1-130) filed on behalf of the beneficiary by
his first United States citizen wife was denied by the district director
on January 30, 1987, based on the finding that the marriage was
entered into for the primary purpose of obtaining immigration benefits
for the beneficiary. The basis for the finding was the fact that the
petitioner and beneficiary lived in different cities at the time of the
denial, and on the conclusion that, at the same time, the beneficiary
was living with his first wife, a citizen of Egypt. No evidence beyond
these conclusions is contained in the record.
   We note that while the petition filed by the beneficiary's first
United States citizen wife was still pending before the district director,
the beneficiary divorced that wife, without knowledge as to what the
outcome of the petition might be. The divorce decree, entered on
December 17, 1936, 1 1/2 months prior to the denial of the petition,
provides that the beneficiary and his wife "were a married couple and
lived together as husband and wife until August 1986 and since then
have lived separate and apart." The mere fact that, at the time of the
visa petition denial, the petitioner was living separate from the
beneficiary is not evidence of an attempt or conspiracy on the
beneficiary's part to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading
the immigration laws. Quite to the contrary, his divorce, prior to a
decision on the petition which may have been to his favor, tends to
reflect the bona fide nature of the marriage that he chose to terminate.
Further, the district director offered no evidence to support his
conclusion that the petitioner never lived with the beneficiary. With
respect to the concern that, during the course of the marriage of the
beneficiary and his first United States citizen wife, the beneficiary was
living with his former wife, we note that, according to the information
contained in the divorce decree of the beneficiary and his first United
States citizen wife, their separation occurred 4 months prior to their
divorce and 5 months prior to the denial of the petition submitted on
the beneficiary's behalf. Therefore, the conclusion of the district
director that the beneficiary was living with his former wife at the time
of the denial, a conclusion also unsupported by documentary evidence,
is, of itself, of no relevance to the issue of whether the beneficiary
Interim Decision #3130

entered into the marriage with his first United States citizen wife in an
attempt to evade the immigration laws. 2
   In order to sustain the district director's revocation of the visa
petition at issue here, it would be necessary to show that approval of
that visa petition was precluded by section 204(c) of the Act, which
bars approval of a visa petition for the benefit of an alien who has
attempted to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the
immigration laws. If that were the case, the previously approved visa
petition would have been revoked for "good and sufficient cause."
Matter of Arias, supra; Matter of Estime, supra. However, the language
of the Code of Federal Regulations is clear that in order to find that an
alien has attempted to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading
the immigration laws, the evidence of such an attempt must be
documented in the alien's file. 

_1(a)(2)(iv) (1989);
Matter of Kahy, supra. No such documentation is contained in the
record before us, and, therefore, there is no basis to support the district
director's conclusion that the beneficiary's prior marriage to a United
States citizen was entered into for the purpose of evading the
immigration laws. Since the beneficiary's prior marriage provided the
sole basis for the revocation of his approved visa petition and there is
no substantial and probative evidentiary basis for a finding that that
marriage was entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration
laws, the revocation of the previously approved visa petition cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, the petitioner's appeal will be sustained, and
the district director's decision will be reversed.
  ORDER:           The appeal is sustained, and the approval of the visa
petition is reinstated.




   zOn appeal, the petitioner herein, who has since had a child with the beneficiary,
notes that prior to the termination of the beneficiary's marriage to his first United States
citizen wife, the beneficiary's former wife and a child of that marriage, both natives and
citizens of Egypt, were staying with him in order for the child to obtain medical
treatment in the United States.

                                           I'70