I-130, I-485 approved after mandamus action filed

Our client, Wendy, married a US citizen in 2003. She came to the US in 2005 under a K-3 visa. She then filed her I-485 to adjust her status to permanent resident. She and her husband were first interviewed on February, 2006. Her application had been pending since then. On January, 2008, we were retained to file mandamus action in federal district court in Northern California. On February 20, 2008, CIS conducted second interview. We knew this would a marriage fraud interview. Wendy’s husband married three times and he applied for green card for all his wives. The second wife only spent a few months in the US before she disappeared. We knew CIS was suspicious of the marriage just because of the history of her husband’s prior marriages.
My clients were separated and were questioned for about two hours. They basically responded to the questions consistently. However, there were several significant discrepancies. At the end, the interviewing office declared that she did not believe this marriage was bona fide and she wanted to deny the application. We argued the merits of the case and explained the inconsistencies.
To our surprise, CIS approved this case yesterday. I suspect that when the officer presented this case to her supervisor for review, the supervisor felt that there are sufficient evidence to prove bona fides of the marriage.
Today is the day CIS supposes to file its answer to our mandamus action.

BIA remands an appeal of I130 visa petition denial

On October 31, 2007, Board of Immigration Appeals(BIA) remanded an appeal of an I-130 visa petition denial by San Francisco District Director with instruction to consider relevant evidence.

Our client married a USC and she filed I-130 petition for him. After the interview, CIS denied the petition. CIS main reason is that there were several discrepancies in their responses to officer's questions at the interview.

BIA, in its decision remanding the case back to San Francisco District Office for further processing, states that the district office failed to follow 8 CFR section 204.1(h) in allowing our clients the opportunity to respond to derogatory information.BIA states that several "discrepancies" concern relatively minor areas of disagreement and the district director did not discuss the areas which the parties provided consistent response.

It has been a practice of CIS San Francisco Office to heavily rely on interview and overlook any other evidence in determining the bona fides of a marriage. We have another similar appeal currently pending at BIA.

The remand has given our clients a chance to prove their marriage and is a victory and vindication of our position that CIS San Francisco did not follow the regulations and settled case laws in the 9th Circuit.