Background
Plaintiffs Trarat and Howard Samuels appealed a district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The agency had denied their visa petition under the marriage fraud bar, finding that Trarat’s prior marriage to Sattsawat Chuakrung was fraudulent.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the agency’s decision de novo to determine if substantial evidence supported the finding of fraud. It found that the parties provided inconsistent stories regarding their living arrangements and relationships, and that Chuakrung concealed a prior child and romantic partner. The court held that these inconsistencies and attempts to mislead officials constituted substantial and probative evidence of fraud. Additionally, the court affirmed that the agency correctly applied the burden-shifting framework, noting that the rebuttal evidence, including affidavits and photographs, did not overcome the evidence of fraud.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that agencies may rely on circumstantial evidence and inconsistencies to find marriage fraud, and that affidavits alone are generally insufficient to rebut such findings without objective documentary corroboration.