SORIANO
Citations
- 19 I. & N. Dec. 764
Syllabus
SORIANO, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988) ID 3081 (PDF) (1) Where a visa petition has once been denied based on a finding that the marriage was entered into solely to bestow an immigration benefit, the petitioner bears a heavy burden of proof with respect to any subsequently filed visa petition involving the same beneficiary. (2) A petitioner may be put on notice of evidentiary requirements by means such as a requirement in the regulations that a particular document be submitted with the visa petition a notice of intent to deny, letter, or form noting the deficiency or requesting additional evidence or an oral statement at an interview that additional evidence is required. (3) Where a visa petition is denied based on a deficiency of proof, the petitioner had not been put on notice of the deficiency and given a reasonable opportunity to address it before the denial, and on appeal the petitioner proffers additional evidence addressing the deficiency, the record will, in the ordinary course, be remanded to allow the Immigration and Naturalization Service to initially consider and address the new evidence. (4) Where the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the visa petition is adjudicated, evidence submitted on appeal will not be considered for any purpose, and the appeal will be adjudicated based on the record of proceedings before the Service.
Cited by
19 cases in this archive cite this case.
- VELARDEBoard of Immigration Appeals· 2002-07-01· cited 302×
- Emmanuel Senyo Agyeman v. Immigration & Naturalization ServiceNinth Circuit· 2002-07-23· cited 294×
- Ramirez-Alejandre v. AshcroftNinth Circuit· 2003-02-13· cited 108×
- ADENIJIiBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1999-07-01· cited 78×
- Ramon Ramirez-Alejandre v. John Ashcroft, Attorney GeneralNinth Circuit· 2003-02-14· cited 65×
- Vasquez v. HolderNinth Circuit· 2010-04-19· cited 51×
- PATINOBoard of Immigration Appeals· 2001-07-01· cited 29×
- MENDESBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1994-07-01· cited 18×
- Malik v. Attorney General of the United StatesThird Circuit· 2011-10-04· cited 15×
- U-HBoard of Immigration Appeals· 2002-07-01· cited 9×
- XIU HONG LIBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1995-07-01· cited 9×
- Bukola Omowole v. Merrick B. GarlandSeventh Circuit· 2021-07-29· cited 4×
- Mairykeeva v. BarrE.D. Pennsylvania· 2019-05-07· cited 4×
- Joseph F. Risoli P.E., LLC v. JohnsonD. Connecticut· 2017-03-31· cited 2×
- IZAGUIRREBoard of Immigration Appeals· 2017-07-01· cited 1×
- CUELLOBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1989-07-01· cited 1×
- Muhammad Malik v. Atty Gen USAThird Circuit· 2011-10-04
- Ghilamichael Zerezghi v. UscisNinth Circuit· 2020-04-14
- FURTADOBoard of Immigration Appeals· 2024-05-17
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Lutwak v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1953-03-16· cited 1,108×
- BRANTIGANBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1966-07-01· cited 133×
- Sang Chul Bark v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceNinth Circuit· 1975-02-05· cited 121×
- LAUREANOBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1983-07-01· cited 97×
- Hurn Bu Roe v. Immigration & Naturalization ServiceNinth Circuit· 1985-09-20· cited 67×
- Rodolfo Garcia-Jaramillo v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceNinth Circuit· 1979-09-24· cited 37×
- PHILLISBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1975-07-01· cited 34×
- McKEEBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1980-07-01· cited 31×
- Harbhajan Singh Johl, AKA Harbhajan Singh v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1967-02-02· cited 17×
- MBoard of Immigration Appeals· 1958-07-01· cited 15×
- Chan v. BellDistrict of Columbia· 1978-12-19· cited 11×
- McLat v. LongoVirgin Islands· 1976-04-27· cited 9×
- PEREIRABoard of Immigration Appeals· 1984-07-01· cited 2×
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.