United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
JANET
BOND ARTERTON, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiffs
Audrey Codling and Dwight Codling bring this action
challenging the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Service's ("USCIS") denial of Audrey
Codling's 1-130 petition for alien relative for the
benefit of Dwight Codling. USCIS found that Dwight Codling
was barred from receiving this benefit under Section 204(c)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act because he had entered
into a prior sham marriage. The parties filed cross motions
for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
([Doc. # 19]), and denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment ([Doc. # 18]).
I.
Background
Plaintiffs
Audrey Codling and Dwight Codling were married on December
17, 2014 and filed the instant 1-130 petition on February 3,
2015. (A.R. [Doc. # 13-6] 649.) USCIS denied the petition,
finding that "the evidence of record contains
substantial and probative evidence which establishes the
beneficiary's [Dwight Codling] prior marriage with
Lorraine Harriot was solely for immigration benefits."
(Id.) USCIS cited Harriot's August 5, 2015
statement to immigration officers that she and Dwight Codling
had made up the story of how they met and how long they had
known each other. (Id. 650.) Harriot told the
immigration officers that she and Codling had hardly lived
together and that she had a boyfriend during their marriage.
(Id.) According to Harriot, the letters that she and
her sister wrote in September 2013 in support of
Codling's application for permanent residency based on
the marriage were done at Codling's request, and Codling
paid Harriot's sister to write her support letter.
(Id.) Harriot stated that at the time her sister
wrote the letter, her sister had never actually met Codling.
(Id.) Harriot further stated that contrary to the
testimony that she and Codling provided during his first
1-130 interview, they had not in fact been residing together.
(Id.) Finally, while Codling claimed in the first
1-130 interview to have met Harriot in Jamaica, his native
country, Harriot claimed that the two had actually met in the
United States. (Id.)
USCIS
concluded that insofar as Audrey Codling had submitted
nothing to contradict or rebut the claims made by Harriot,
Harriot's claims were truthful. (Id.) Crediting
Harriot's statements, USCIS determined that Dwight
Codling's marriage to Harriot was entered into for the
primary purpose of obtaining immigration benefits, and
accordingly, approval of the second, instant 1-130 Petition
was prohibited under INA 204(c). (Id.)
In its
November 14, 2017 opinion, the Board of Immigration Appeals
("BIA") upheld the USCIS determination, finding
that "there is substantial and probative evidence
tending to show that the beneficiary's prior marriage was
entered into for the specific purpose of evading the
immigration laws." (Id. 593.) The BIA
specifically noted that "[i]n so doing, we do not rely
conclusively on any finding in a past proceedings, nor do we
find that the [USCIS] Director did so." (Id.)
Further, the BIA stated "we agree with the
Director's observation in his decision, that very little
documentary evidence to establish the bona fides of the
beneficiary's former marriage has been submitted in
response to the substantial evidence of fraud."
(Id.)
Plaintiffs
characterize the evidence in the administrative record as all
demonstrating that at the time Mr. Codling and his ex-spouse
were married, "they intended to establish a life
together" and that "[i]t was only after [] they
married that their relationship deteriorated and they
gradually began making separate lives." (Pls.' Mot.
Summ. J. [Doc. # 18-1] at 7.) Plaintiffs do not cite what
evidence in the record specifically supports this
characterization.
Plaintiffs
also note that "[e]ven though [Mr. Codling's] prior
spouse admitted providing false testimony and false documents
to support his original 1-130 Petition for approval of his 2
year conditional status, she never testified that she did not
have a bona fide relationship with [him] or that she
conspired with [him] to enter into the marriage to evade
immigration laws." (Id. at 9.) According to
Plaintiffs, "[t]o the contrary, although the former
spouse was extremely upset with [Mr. Codling] and [] willing
to have him deported when she provided her statements to the
immigration officers, she did not claim that the parties'
marriage was fraudulent----" (Id. at 9-10.) The
former spouse, according to Plaintiffs, "did not claim
that she was paid to marry [Mr. Codling], that they did not
have an intimate relationship, or that they did not live
together following their marriage." (Id. at
10.) Finally, Plaintiffs contend, "not only were facts
of this nature absent from her testimony, [] she actually
testified that she married [Mr. Codling] because she had
loved him." (Id. at 10.)
Plaintiffs
concede that Mr. Codling "lied about certain facts
pertaining to meeting his former wife" but contend that
"there is nothing in the record evidencing that he lied
for the purpose of concealing that they entered into sham
marriage[.]" (Id. at 10-11.)
Previous
and Parallel Procedural History
After
Mr. Codling and Harriot married on February 10, 2008, Harriot
filed an 1-130 Petition on his behalf on February 6, 2009.
(A.R. 139.) USCIS approved the 1-130 and Codling obtained
conditional permanent residence status. (Id.) On
June 30, 2011, Codling and Harriot jointly filed Form 1-751
Petition to Remove Conditions with USCIS. (Id. 59.)
But on August 30, 2012, Harriot did not appear at USCIS for
the interview on the 1-751. (Id. 4.) Thereafter, on
January 9, 2013, the 1-751 was denied and Codling's
conditional permanent residence status was terminated.
(Id. 4, 59.)
On
February 11, 2013, Codling, through counsel, filed a second
1-751 Petition, this time seeking a "good faith
waiver." (Id. 14.) In this second filing,
Codling acknowledged that he was divorced from Harriot but
asserted he was still entitled to have the conditions of his
permanent residence status removed because he entered into
the marriage in good faith. (Id.) On April 1, 2014,
USCIS denied the 1-751 Petition on the ground that Codling
failed to show that he married Harriot in good faith and that
rather the evidence showed that he married her for the
purpose of evading the immigration laws. (Id. 8-12.)
After
the denial of Codling's first 1-751 petition and the
termination of his conditional permanent residence status,
the Department of Homeland Security believed that he no
longer had a legal basis for his presence in the United
States. (Id. 4.) Accordingly, on May 21, 2013,
Codling was served with a Notice to Appear for removal
proceedings in Immigration Court. (Id. 2-3.) Codling
obtained a one-year continuance of the removal proceeding so
that he could pursue the second 1-751 (seeking a good-faith
waiver). (Id. 228-30.) After failing to obtain the
good-faith waiver from USCIS, Codling sought the same relief
from the Immigration Court. An evidentiary hearing was held
on September 8, 2015, and September 29, 2015, at which
Codling and Harriot both testified. (Id. 239-561.)
Although the Immigration Court proceeding is distinct from
USCIS' processing of the 1-130, the transcript of the
hearing is part of the record in this case. On September 29,
2015, Immigration Judge Michael W. Straus ordered Codling
removed to Jamaica. (Id. 204-221.) In his decision,
the judge concluded that Codling had not carried his burden
to show that his first marriage was bona fide, that Codling
was not a credible witness, and that the number of documents
offered to show a bona fide marriage was
"sparse." (Id. 216-19.) Codling's
removal is not at issue in this litigation and is currently
on appeal before the BIA.
II.
...