PATEL
Citations
- 19 I. & N. Dec. 774
Syllabus
PATEL, 19 I&N Dec. 774 (BIA 1988) ID 3083 (PDF) (1) Section 204(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(2)(A) (Supp. IV 1986), applies retroactively to a spousal second-preference petition which was pending adjudication when the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-639, 100 Stat. 3537, became law. (2) Section 204(a)(2)(A) of the Act sets forth a presumption of a fraudulent prior marriage in any visa petition in which fewer than 5 years will have elapsed between the time a petitioner acquired lawful permanent resident status based on that prior marriage and the time his visa petition for a subsequent spouse is adjudicated. (3) In order to rebut the presumption of a fraudulent prior marriage set forth in section 204(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the petitioner has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the prior marriage was not entered into for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws. (4) The clear and convincing standard of proof, which requires more than the preponderance of the evidence standard but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, is that degree of proof, though not necessarily conclusive, which will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction. (5) The evidence submitted by a petitioner in an attempt to rebut the presumption of a fraudulent prior marriage set forth in section 204(a)(2)(A) of the Act should not be presumed to be false or contrived, but rather should receive the same fair and reasonable evaluation as that given to evidence in any other visa petition proceeding. (6) Although a rapid sequence of events in a case arising under section 204(a)(2)(A) of the Act may suggest a lack of bona fide intent at the time of a petitioner's prior marriage, the sequence of events in the instant case was not so rapid as to indicate unequivocally a lack of bona fide intent, and the petitioner has provided evidence which adequately explain
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that section 204(a)(2)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(2)(A) (Supp. IV 1986), requires a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of a fraudulent prior marriage
- “The clear and convincing standard imposes a lower burden than the clear, unequivocal, and convincing standard applied in deportation and denaturalization proceedings because it does not require that the evidence be unequivocal or of such a quality as to dispel all doubt.”
- “The clear and convincing standard imposes a lower burden than the clear, unequivocal, and convincing standard applied in deportation and denatural-ization proceedings because it does not require that the evidence be unequivocal or of such a quality as to dispel all doubt.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Cited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- J-EBoard of Immigration Appeals· 2002-07-01· cited 156×
- ARTHURBoard of Immigration Appeals· 2002-07-01· cited 88×
- In Gun Choe v. Immigration & Naturalization ServiceNinth Circuit· 1993-12-14· cited 79×
- P. SINGHBoard of Immigration Appeals· 2019-07-01· cited 49×
- Mondaca-Vega v. HolderNinth Circuit· 2015-12-15· cited 45×
- CHAWATHEBoard of Immigration Appeals· 2010-07-01· cited 44×
- M-B-ABoard of Immigration Appeals· 2002-07-01· cited 34×
- Douglas Bourdon v. United States Department of Homeland SecurityEleventh Circuit· 2019-10-03· cited 28×
- Leslie Ward v. Eric Holder, Jr.Sixth Circuit· 2013-08-15· cited 20×
- L-S-JBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1997-07-01· cited 13×
- ACEIJAS-QUIROZBoard of Immigration Appeals· 2014-07-01· cited 11×
- BUENOBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1997-07-01· cited 11×
- GONZALEZ-CAMARILLOBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1997-07-01· cited 10×
- LAZARTEBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1996-07-01· cited 9×
- MARTINEZBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1997-07-01· cited 8×
- CABRERABoard of Immigration Appeals· 1996-07-01· cited 7×
- MORAGABoard of Immigration Appeals· 2001-07-01· cited 6×
- CASILLASBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1998-07-01· cited 2×
- Susana Morales Bribiesca v. William P. BarrSixth Circuit· 2020-10-30· cited 1×
- Da Silva Borges v. BondiFirst Circuit· 2025-07-18
Cites
21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court· 1979-04-30· cited 3,004×
- Bradley v. School Bd. of RichmondSupreme Court· 1974-05-15· cited 1,967×
- Lutwak v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1953-03-16· cited 1,108×
- BRANTIGANBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1966-07-01· cited 133×
- Marshall v. Gibson's Products, Inc. of PlanoFifth Circuit· 1978-11-20· cited 66×
- HOBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1988-07-01· cited 51×
- PHILLISBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1975-07-01· cited 34×
- McKEEBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1980-07-01· cited 31×
- City of Great Falls v. United States Department of LaborNinth Circuit· 1982-04-05· cited 27×
- Unnamed caseNinth Circuit· 1987-12-07· cited 25×
- Harbhajan Singh Johl, AKA Harbhajan Singh v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1967-02-02· cited 17×
- United States v. MastrangeloE.D. New York· 1983-04-15· cited 15×
- MBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1958-07-01· cited 15×
- McLat v. LongoVirgin Islands· 1976-04-27· cited 9×
- CHERY AND HASANBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1975-07-01· cited 9×
- ABDOULINBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1980-07-01· cited 6×
- BULOSBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1976-07-01· cited 6×
- AWADHBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1976-07-01· cited 5×
- ABDELHADIBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1975-07-01· cited 3×
- LTV Federal Credit Union v. UMIC Government Securities, Inc.Fifth Circuit· 1983-05-06· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.