Sung Hee Damon Sang Woo Lee Seung Woo Lee v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
Docket: 02-71677
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 11, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Sung Hee Damon and her two children, Sang Woo Lee and Seung Woo Lee, petitioned for review of a deportation order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals examined whether substantial evidence supported the Immigration Judge's (IJ) finding that Sung Hee's marriage to Allen Scott Damon was not entered into in good faith. The court determined that the evidence strongly indicated the marriage was, in fact, entered into in good faith, leading to the granting of the petition and remanding the case for further proceedings.
Sung Hee, a citizen of South Korea, met Scott, a U.S. citizen, during a visit to her sister in Hawaii. Despite language barriers, they developed a relationship, with Scott frequently visiting Sung Hee. After returning to Korea for a short period, Sung Hee returned to Hawaii and married Scott on November 9, 1989. They lived together in her sister's home, sharing a joint bank account and paying rent. The marriage faced challenges, particularly due to Scott's substance use and lack of employment, which caused friction with Sung Hee's sister.
Scott left Sung Hee in December 1990, attempted reconciliation in May 1991, but ultimately, the marriage ended with a divorce in September 1993. The court's opinion highlights the evidence of their cohabitation and shared responsibilities, countering the IJ's conclusion regarding the legitimacy of their marriage.
Sung Hee testified at her deportation hearing, stating she was unaware of her ex-husband Scott Damon's whereabouts, though they had a brief meeting in 1994 where he provided her with a notarized letter confirming their marriage in 1989. In the letter, Scott claimed their marriage was based on love but cited language barriers and his immaturity as reasons for its failure. Following the marriage, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) granted Sung Hee conditional permanent residence status for two years, during which she and Scott were required to file a joint petition to remove the conditional status. Unable to do so, she sought a waiver, which was denied twice, resulting in the termination of her status. The INS subsequently charged her with deportation in 1997. During a hearing, the immigration judge (IJ) determined that Sung Hee's marriage was not entered into in good faith and that she would not suffer extreme hardship if deported, leading to the denial of her waiver application and an order of deportation. Although the IJ noted that a bona fide marriage would have warranted favorable discretion, Sung Hee failed to prove this. Her case is subject to transitional rules from the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which stipulate that judicial review is based solely on the existing administrative record. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted the IJ's reasoning, allowing for review of the IJ's opinion as if it were BIA's.
Sung Hee's good faith in entering her marriage with Scott Damon is evaluated under a substantial evidence standard, requiring affirmation unless evidence overwhelmingly supports her claims. The crux of the inquiry focuses on whether they intended to establish a life together at the time of marriage. Relevant evidence includes their joint insurance policies, property leases, tax forms, bank accounts, and testimonies regarding their courtship, wedding, and cohabitation. Sung Hee provided substantial evidence supporting their intent, including a courtship period, a wedding ceremony, shared finances, and over a year of cohabitation. There is no rigid formula for assessing good faith, and the definition of a marital life is flexible, free from federal mandates. The review of evidence is limited to the intent at marriage, avoiding subjective judgments about what constitutes a "real" marriage. However, the Immigration Judge (IJ) improperly relied on personal inferences, deeming it implausible for Sung Hee to marry shortly after returning from Korea without a shared language or cultural background, and considered her not adopting Damon’s last name and the non-religious nature of the ceremony as significant factors against good faith.
The Immigration Judge's (IJ) reasons for concluding that Sung Hee did not enter into a good faith marriage with Scott Damon were deemed insufficient and based on personal biases rather than objective evidence. The court emphasized that good faith in marriage is determined by the intent to establish a life together, which should be assessed through objective evidence without the imposition of personal values or norms. The judgment highlighted that societal norms, such as a wife's choice not to adopt her husband’s last name or the lack of a religious ceremony, do not negate the intention to form a committed partnership. The court found the IJ's conclusion unsupported by substantial evidence, asserting that a reasonable fact finder would reach the opposite conclusion regarding Sung Hee's marital intent.
While the court determined that substantial evidence indicated the marriage was entered into in good faith, it remanded the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to decide whether Sung Hee should receive a discretionary waiver under INA § 216(c)(4). The IJ had previously indicated that a favorable discretionary decision would have been appropriate if good faith had been established. The petition was granted and remanded for further proceedings aligned with these findings. Additionally, the court noted procedural changes regarding the respondent and acknowledged that the children's claims were dependent on Sung Hee's situation. The facts relied upon were accepted as true since no adverse credibility findings were made against Sung Hee. Lastly, the document noted the transfer of functions from the INS to the Department of Homeland Security, clarifying the relevant agency for the purposes of this case.
Within 90 days following the two-year anniversary of conditional resident status, both the alien and their spouse must submit a joint petition to the INS to remove the conditions on their residency. This petition must include evidence demonstrating that the marriage was legitimate and not intended to evade immigration laws. If the District Director denies the waiver, the INS can initiate removal proceedings against the alien. Additionally, the Attorney General has the discretion to waive the requirement for a joint petition if the alien can prove that the marriage was genuine but has since ended (not due to the spouse's death) and that the alien was not responsible for not filing the petition. Sung Hee did not contest the Immigration Judge's finding that she would not experience extreme hardship if deported, thus that issue is not addressed in the review.
