A-6714677
Decided by General Office November 13, 1947
Veteran's "Wife" — Admitted under the act of December 28, 1945 — Deportability under act of May 14, 1937 because the wife contracted the marriage to procure entry under act of December 28, 1945 and after entry did not fulfill her promises for such marital agreement ("Gigolo" Act).
Where the alien married a United States citizen (who was honorably discharged after service in World War II) upon agreement at the time of marriage that it would be entered into solely to facilitate her admission to the United States, and would be annulled after her entry here, which marriage was never consummated, and less than 3 months after entry under the provisions of the act of December 28, 1945 (without a visa), such marriage was annulled in California on her complaint on the ground of fraud, it was apparent the alien entered into such marriage without intent to execute it and after admission into the United States, she failed to keep the marital status intact (pursuant to the fraudulent marital agreement), and therefore, under the above circumstances, she was subject to deportation under the second paragraph of the act of May 14, 1937.
(See 3 IN Dec. 102.)
CHARGES:
Warrant: Act of May 14, 1937, in that at time of entry she was not entitled to admission as a nonquota immigrant under the act of December 28, 1945, for the reason that such nonquota status was obtained through fraud by contracting a marriage which after entry has been judicially annulled retroactive to the date of such marriage.
Lodged: Act of May 14, 1937, in that, at the time of entry, she was not entitled to admission under the act of December 28, 1945, for the reason that she contracted a marriage to procure entry to the United States as a nonquota immigrant under the act of December 28, 1945, and failed or refused, after entry, to fulfill her promises for such marital agreement.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL OFFICE
Discussion: This case was first considered under date of October 24, 1947 and the proceedings ordered reopened to permit lodging of the additional charge set forth above. Respondent is a 16-year-old female, a native and national of France, who last entered the United States on July 3, 1947 for permanent residence under Public Law 271. The evidence of record establishes that the respondent married L---- S---- C----, a United States citizen and discharged veteran of the United States Army, on June 3, 1947, Paris, France. Respondent has testified that she and L---- S---- C---- had agreed at the time of the marriage that it would be entered into solely to facilitate her admission to the United States. She has further testified that it was agreed that the marriage would be annulled after her entry into the United States. The marriage was never consummated, and the respondent has testified that he never had sexual relations with L---- S---- C----. On September 3, 1947, in an action instituted by the respondent in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, the marriage was annulled on the ground of fraud. Despite the fact that the respondent was the petitioner in the action of annullment, the evidence of record establishes that the marriage was entered into by the respondent without intent to execute her marital contract.
The Act of May 14, 1937 provides:
SECTION 3. That any alien who at any time after entering the United States if found to have secured either nonquota or preference-quota visa through fraud, by contracting a marriage which, subsequent to entry into the United States, has been judicially annulled retroactively to date of marriage, shall be taken into custody and deported pursuant to the provisions of section 14 of the Immigration Act of 1924 on the ground that at time of entry he was not entitled to admission on the visa presented upon arrival in the United States. This section shall be effective whether entry was made before or after the enactment of this act.
When it appears that the immigrant fails or refuses to fulfill his promises for a marital agreement made to procure his entry as an immigrant he then becomes immediately subject to deportation.
In the instant case the charge contained in the warrant of arrest is based on the first paragraph of section 3 of the above statute. The evidence of record establishes that the respondent did not, in fact, obtain a nonquota or preference-quota visa, but that she entered the United States as an immigrant pursuant to Public Law 271. It would appear, accordingly, that the instant case is not within the purview of the first paragraph of section 3 of the act of May 14, 1937, and the charge contained in the warrant of arrest cannot be sustained.
However, it would appear from examination of the facts that the respondent would be deportable under the second paragraph of section 3 of the act of May 14, 1937. This view of the facts is supported by the broad construction given to that paragraph in opinion of the Solicitor of Labor, 55804/996 (May 22, 1940), wherein, after a discussion of the legislative history of the provision, it is stated:
It is believed, therefore, that the following construction of the second paragraph of section 3 is reasonably warranted: "When the marriage of a citizen to an alien results in the alien spouse being admitted to the United States under a nonquota or preference-quota status, the alien's failure to continue to maintain and keep the marital status intact for some reason that is traceable back to the inception of the marriage and establishes the marriage to have been fraudulent from its very beginning, the alien spouse may be made the subject of deportation proceedings. Provided, of course, that the purpose for which the fraud was perpetrated was `solely to fraudulently expedite admission to the United States.'"
It is apparent from an examination of the facts of the instant case that the respondent did contract a marriage solely to fraudulently expedite her admission to the United States; that the marriage resulted in her admission to this country under a nonquota status; and that thereafter, pursuant to the fraudulent marital agreement, she failed to keep the marital status intact. It is concluded that the respondent is deportable solely on the lodged charge.
Other Factors: The respondent has no relatives or dependents in the United States. She has been advised of the provisions of section 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1917 as amended, but has declined to apply for discretionary relief. She has expressed a desire to be deported to France so that she might rejoin her parents.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the respondent be deported to France at Government expense on the lodged charge, to wit:
Act of May 14, 1937 in that, at the time of entry, she was not entitled to admission under the act of December 28, 1945, for the reason that she contracted a marriage to procure entry to the United States as a nonquota immigrant under the act of December 28, 1945, and failed or refused, after entry, to fulfill her promises for such marital agreement.
So ordered.