A-8924774
Decided by Regional Commissioner June 18, 1956
Good moral character — Section 101 (f), Immigration and Nationality Act — Illicit relationship.
(1) A married woman who lived in an illicit relationship from 1948 to 1954 has committed adultery and is precluded from establishing good moral character under section 101 (f) (2) of the act, notwithstanding her having obtained a decree of annulment of her marriage on May 14, 1956.
(2) Even assuming that the decree of annulment voided the alien's marriage ab initio so that she could not be said to have committed adultery within the purview of section 101 (f) (2) of the act, a finding of lack of good moral character can be based on grounds other than those specified in the statute. Having engaged in an illicit relationship within the 5-year period, her conduct falls below that of an average person and she has not established that she has been a person of good moral character during the required period.
BEFORE THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
Discussion: This case was originally considered on February 1, 1956, at which time we affirmed the district director's decision denying the subject's application for adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident, pursuant to section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The district director's denial was predicated on the applicant's failure to establish good moral character for the 5-year period immediately preceding the application date. Her failure to establish good moral character was based on evidence adduced that she had lived in an adulterous relationship with one M---- S---- in Manila, P.I., from 1948 until her departure from the Philippines in July of 1954, during which time she was married to one H---- E----.
Counsel now submits a decree of annulment of marriage dated May 14, 1956, and issued in the Superior Court of California at San Francisco, which decrees that the marriage between the applicant and E---- be declared wholly null and void and thereby annulled. Counsel contends that by establishing that the applicant was not lawfully married to H---- E----, no crime was committed and the basis for the denial does not exist, and that as the decree removes the prior objection, the applicant is now able to establish good moral character. We do not agree with this.
Assuming, but not conceding, that the decree of annulment voided the marriage ab initio and that adultery could not have been committed, the inalterable fact still exists that the applicant lived in an illicit relationship with S---- within the 5-year period in which she is required to establish good moral character. While her annulment might cure adultery for the purpose of section 101 (f) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, that section also provides that we are not precluded from finding that for reasons other than those set forth in said section that such person was not of good moral character. While moral excellence is not required, her behavior must measure up to the standard of the average citizen. In considering her conduct and behavior during the 5-year period, it is concluded that it falls below that of the average person and she, therefore, has not established that she has been a person of good moral character during all of that period. Accordingly, we will reaffirm our decision of February 1, 1956, dismissing her appeal from the district director's order of December 27, 1955, denying her application to adjust status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Order: It is ordered that our decision and order in this case of February 1, 1956, be reaffirmed.