Folinskyinla

Hi:

I ran across the case when researching something else. The recitation of facts caught my eye:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...55359a&exact=1

Katie

That was an interesting read; I wonder what happened to the Patels.

Anyway, I had a couple of questions after reading the opinion. First, did it seem at all odd to you that Patel was granted LPR status given the facts that he did not answer the question about previous marriages and he separated from his USC wife less than 2 months after the marriage. That raises a marriage fraud flag in my head, but I suppose that the INS or IJ adduced a lot more facts about the marriage to Judy than were mentioned in the circuit court opinion.

Second, if Patel were denaturalized, what does that mean in terms of his status? In other words, does he "revert" back to the status he had before he was naturalized (ie: is he an LPR)?

Katie

YtsejaM

The thing that suprises me the most is that Patel applied for AOS on June 8, 1982 and was approved on August 9, 1982.

Ahhh, the old days!

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Even given the separation, it may have been a bona fide relationship. There is case law that a bona fide marriage will support an adjustment even if the parties are separated and the marriage is no longer viable. The marriage to Judy lasted over a year. Given the time frames involved and processing times back in the early 80's, no "conditional" grants back then and various other things -- the context does NOT establish marriage fraud -- in fact, "fraud" is not an issue in the case at all -- it was one of bigamy -- that there was lawful marriage to Judy in the first place, therefore, no valid adjustment and threfore no valid naturalization.

The reference to the apprehension in New Mexico and the filing and granting date suggests that the case may have been adjudicated entirely in Immigration Court and given the fact there is no permanent immigration court in New Mexico, it may be very well that the court "rode circuit" to New Mexico once a month.

However, I would not be surprised that this case is one of the reasons that CIS is so big on the "N/A" v "none" question.

On denaturalization, the citizen reverts to their prior status as if they were never naturalized in the first place. They then become subject to removal proceedings. However, depending upon the facts, it is possible for a person to be denaturalized due to ineligibility for naturalization which do not are a ground of removability or for which a waiver of removability exists. [Don't recall the case name, but I seem to recall a case that went to the Supremes where a purported mafia kingpin was denaturalized and then the government sought his deportation for a tax evasion conviction which occurred AFTER naturalization but BEFORE denaturalization. It was held that a conviction while he was unchallengeably a citizen could not be used. I recall another case from the court of appeals where a Chinese man had surrendered his certificate of citizenship under the "Chinese Confession Program" of the 1950's -- and INS went to deport him for "entry without inspection" on entires as a US citizen -- not allowed. I don't know the names of the cases off hand].