Ofir Hanan, an Israeli citizen, entered the United States on a tourist visa and overstayed. In 2010, he married Margarita Jaimes, a U.S. citizen, but they divorced less than two years later. Neither Hanan nor Jaimes ever filed for an immigration benefit based on that marriage. In 2014, Hanan married Melanie Gillum, a U.S. citizen, and she filed an I-130 petition to classify him as an immediate relative. USCIS denied the petition, determining that Hanan's prior marriage was a sham entered into for the purpose of evading immigration laws. USCIS relied on a sworn statement from Jaimes alleging a financial deal for the marriage and a redacted state investigative report in which Hanan admitted to paying Jaimes to marry him to obtain a green card. After the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Hanan's appeal, he and Gillum sued in federal district court, arguing that the marriage fraud bar did not apply because no benefit was sought in the prior marriage and that they were denied due process by the lack of cross-examination of Jaimes.
The court addressed two primary issues. First, regarding the statutory interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c)(2), the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the marriage fraud bar requires the noncitizen to have sought an immigration benefit in the prior marriage. The court held that the statute's plain meaning bars approval if a noncitizen 'attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.' The court noted that the present perfect tense ('has attempted') applies to completed schemes, and the absence of a 'seeking benefits' requirement in subsection (c)(2), which is present in subsection (c)(1), indicates a deliberate congressional choice to cover attempts that fall short of filing a petition. Second, the court analyzed the due process claim under the three factors of Mathews v. Eldridge. While acknowledging a U.S. citizen has a property interest in the approval of an I-130 petition, the court found that the risk of erroneous deprivation was low because the ex-spouse's testimony was corroborated by Hanan's own admission in a state report. Furthermore, the court determined that requiring cross-examination would impose unnecessary burdens on the agency without materially advancing the plaintiffs' interest, especially since the plaintiffs had multiple opportunities to rebut the evidence and provided no substantial evidence of a bona fide prior marriage.
The decision confirms that the marriage fraud bar is a lifetime prohibition that applies to any noncitizen who attempts to enter a sham marriage for immigration purposes, even if no visa or green card was ever sought in that specific instance. It also clarifies that USCIS is not constitutionally required to provide cross-examination of ex-spouse witnesses in every marriage fraud case, particularly when independent evidence of the fraud exists. The plaintiffs' I-130 petition remains denied, permanently barring Hanan from immediate relative classification based on his history.