In the Matter of Concepcion

3 Citing cases

  1. Jomaa v. United States

    940 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2019)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that a revocation after the discovery of a mistake was a non-discretionary act of "error correction"

    Motor Vehicle Mfrs. , 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs contend that § 1154(c) should not apply to Rizk and point to two administrative decisions in support of their argument: Matter of Concepcion , 16 I. & N. Dec. 10 (BIA 1976), and Matter of Christos, Inc. , 26 I. & N. Dec. 537 (USCIS AAO 2015). In Concepcion , the BIA held that an older version of § 1154(c) did not apply to a visa petitioner who falsified marriage documents but did not enter into an actual marriage.

  2. Hanan v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. Uscis

    23-cv-02414-HSG (N.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2024)

    The bar therefore only applied if a noncitizen had obtained an immigration benefit based on a fraudulent marriage. See, e.g., Matter of Concepcion, 16 I. & N. Dec. 10, 11 (BIA 1976) (concluding that prior bar did not apply where the petitioner was accorded immediate relative status on the basis of falsified documents and “[n]o marriage was entered into”); Matter of Isber, 20 I. & N. Dec. 676, 678 (BIA 1993) (explaining that prior bar had a “loophole” such that the bar did not apply if “the petitioner withdrew the visa petition on being confronted with evidence that the marriage was a sham”).

  3. Jomaa v. United States

    Case No. 18-cv-12526 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Rizk claims that because she never had a legal marriage to Derbass, she was never actually married to him and § 204(c) should not apply. Plaintiffs heavily rely on Matter of Concepcion, 16 I. & N. Dec. 10, 11 (BIA 1976), which states in relevant part: The beneficiary has previously been accorded immediate relative status as the spouse of a United States citizen.