According to an article published by former immigration judge Andrew R. Arthur on February 27, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice issued a landmark decision on February 26 – Matter of Fortjoe. This decision not only rejected an appeal by a foreign man accused of marriage fraud but also officially overturned the 2015 precedent of “Matter of Agour,” ruling explicitly that fraudulent acts committed during the adjustment of status process are not eligible for the “fraudulent entry” exemption clause.
In his article, Arthur pointed out that this ruling not only upheld the original case judgment but also corrected a decade-long legal misinterpretation, which has significant implications for the marriage immigration system.
This is the second binding decision by the BIA in less than two weeks related to marriage fraud. The earlier released “Matter of Jin” allowed deceived U.S. citizen spouses to proactively reopen their cases. The consecutive rulings indicate that the appellate body is clearly tightening the legal standards concerning marriage fraud.
The individual at the center of this case, Francis Jude Fortjoe, is a Ghanaian national who legally entered the U.S. in 1995. In 2002, he married a U.S. citizen and had his wife submit an I-130 family immigration petition.
During a 2007 immigration interview, he did not disclose the fact that he had two children with another woman in both 2004 and 2007. As the immigration authorities were unaware at the time, his I-130 application was approved, and he subsequently obtained a green card through the adjustment of status process. He later divorced and remarried the mother of his children.
It was only in 2012 when he applied for naturalization that he revealed the aforementioned children to immigration authorities. His naturalization application was then denied, and in 2013 he was placed in removal proceedings, accused of being “inadmissible at the time of adjustment of status due to willful misrepresentation of material facts.”
During the immigration court proceedings, Fortjoe admitted to being deportable but filed two remedial applications: one for the INA §237(a)(1)(H) fraud waiver to retain his original green card, and the other to reapply for adjustment of status, coupled with the INA §212(i) fraud waiver.
The immigration judge found his testimony lacking credibility and not meeting the standard of “extreme hardship,” rejecting all applications. Fortjoe subsequently appealed to the BIA.
The key issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the term “admission.”
INA §237(a)(1)(H) allows judges to waive deportability grounds resulting from fraud at the time of “admission.” However, the controversy lies in whether obtaining a green card through the adjustment of status process within the U.S. can be considered as “admission.”
The 2015 ruling in “Matter of Agour” had declared that adjustment of status could be deemed as “admission,” thus making in-country fraud eligible for that exemption. Arthur noted that the ruling was disputed at the time and criticized for deviating from the congressional legislative intent.
In the “Fortjoe” case, the BIA adopted a strict textual interpretation, stating that post the 1996 immigration law reform, “admission” explicitly refers to the lawful entry after inspection and approval, not the in-country status adjustment process. Therefore, fraudulent acts during the status adjustment process fall outside the scope of the 237(a)(1)(H) exemption.
However, to avoid affecting cases reliant on old precedents, the BIA stated that the new interpretation will be applied prospectively.
Arthur, in his analysis, highlighted that this decision significantly narrows the remedial space for marriage fraudsters. In the future, obtaining a green card through marriage fraud within the U.S. may no longer be preserved through the 237(a)(1)(H) provision.
Combining the recent release of “Matter of Jin,” the BIA is empowering deceived citizen spouses with the opportunity to reopen cases while tightening the legal exemption space for fraudsters, leading to a systemic dual adjustment.
Experts believe that with family-based immigration consistently accounting for the highest percentage of green card issuances, the recent consecutive rulings by the appellate body indicate a clearer and stricter stance on marriage fraud issues.