U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF V-G-M-

APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: JUNE 13, 2017

PETITION: FORM I-360, PETITION FOR AMERASIAN, WIDOW(ER), OR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT

The Petitioner seeks immigrant classification as an abused spouse of a U.S. citizen. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(l)(A)(iii). Under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), an abused spouse may self-petition as an immediate relative rather than remain with or rely upon an abuser to secure immigration benefits.

The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow( er), or Special Immigrant (VA WA petition), concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that he is a person of good moral character.

On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that he has established good moral character.

Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LAW

A petitioner who is the spouse of a United States citizen may self-petition for immigrant classification if the petitioner demonstrates that he or she entered into the marriage with the United States citizen spouse in good faith and that during the marriage, the petitioner or his or her child was battered or subjected to extreme cruelty perpetrated by the petitioner's spouse. Section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii)(I) of the Act. In addition, a petitioner must show that he or she is eligible to be classified as an immediate relative under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, resided with the abusive spouse, and is a person of good moral character. Section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii)(II) of the Act.

A petitioner lacks good moral character if he or she is a person described in section 101(±) of the Act. A petitioner will also be found to lack good moral character, unless he or she establishes extenuating circumstances, if he or she committed unlawful a~ts that adversely reflect upon his or her moral character, or was convicted or imprisoned for such acts, although the acts do not require an automatic finding of lack of good moral character. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(l)(vii). A petitioner's claim of good moral character will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the provisions of section 101(±) ofthe Act and the standards ofthe average citizen in the community. !d.

.

Matter of V-G-M-

We may also consider other credible evidence of good moral character, such as affidavits from responsible persons who knowledgeably attest to a petitioner's good moral character. !d.

The burden of proof is on a petitioner to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). A petitioner may submit any evidence for us to consider; however, we determine, in our sole discretion, the credibility of and the weight to give that evidence. Section 204(a)(l)(J) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(i).

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and a psychological evaluation. The record also contains a declaration from the Petitioner, letters from family and friends attesting to his character and rehabilitation, court records, financial documents, and civil documents. Upon review of the evidence, including that submitted on appeal, we find it insufficient to overcome the Director's ·decision and to establish the Petitioner's good moral character.

The record shows that in 2013 the Petitioner was convicted in of harassment in violation of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) section

9A.46.020(1) and fourth degree assault in violation ofRCW section 9A.36.041. The Petitioner was sentenced to 179 days and 364 days, concurrently, with credit for 118 days served and given other stipulations by the court, including completion of a domestic violence program. The record indicates that these convictions were for the Petitioner's actions that involved D-N-E- 1

, his then spouse, through whom he claims eligibility under VAWA.2 The record further shows that in 2015 the Petitioner was convicted in of third degree assault in violation of RCW section 9A.36.031 (1 )(f) and second degree malicious mischief in violation of RCW section 9A.48.080(l)(a) for his actions involving his then-girlfriend, S-F-. The Petitioner was sentenced to 11.75 months and 6 months, with credit for 25 days served, and given other stipulations by the court.3

In his declaration submitted below, the Petitioner described abusive relationships with his father in .Mexico, his ex-spouse, and his former girlfriend. He stated that he was sorry for mistakes in his relationships, that he was overwhelmed by the relationships, that he had difficulty coping with stress,

1 Initials are used throughout this decision to protect the identities of the individuals. 2 Memorandum from William R. Yate~, Associate Director for Operations, USCIS, HQOPRD 70/8. I /8.2, Determinations of Good Moral Character in VA W A-Based Self-Petitions 3 (Jan. 19, 2005), http://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy­memoranda, provides that: In order for an act or conviction to be considered sufficiently "connected" to the battering or extreme cruelty, the evidence must establish that the battering or extreme cruelty experienced by the self-petitioner compelled or coerced him/her to commit the act or crime for which he/she was convicted. In other words, the evidence should establish that the self-petitioner would not have committed the act or crime in the absence of the battering or extreme cruelty. 3 The Director's decision notes that a person who was convicted of or admits to having committed of crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) may not be considered to be of good moral character, and that in a previous brief, the Petitioner argued his convictions are not for CIMTs. As the Petitioner has not otherwise established good moral character we will not address whether his convictiOfiS are for CIMTs.

2

.

Matter of V-G-M-

and that he feared getting into trouble with authorities. The Petitioner further stated that he made "stupid" threats that were not real to his former girlfriend and regrets his actions, but that he had no emotional support during months of stress about the relationship. He also maintained that he learned from domestic violence classes to walk away from unhealthy situations and to seek help. The Petitioner stated that he now works and co-owns some businesses and that he supports his mother and his child. In his brief, the Petitioner explained that he attempted to stay in his marriage for the benefit of his child and that he attended domestic violence classes for nine months, agreed to liberal child support, gave full custody to his spouse, agreed to not oppose adoption of his child as example of his attempt to do what was best for his child, and still pays child support while also taking care of his mother financially and emotionally. He asserted that, regarding his second arrest, he was coerced by his girlfriend, who admitted that she had lied to police about assault, and that he broke under the pressure of "enduring emotional provocations" and is embarrassed and ashamed by his actions.

In her statement, the Petitioner's mother maintained that the Petitioner is kind and generous, that he cares for her health, donates moneyto others, and buys things for his child in efforts to bond with her. A 2015 psychological evaluation prepared by M.A., was also submitted below with the VAWA petition. Ms. described the Petitioner's experiences, diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and opined that the Petitioner does not present a danger and that he attended domestic violence classes.

On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he has established good moral character through his personal statement, proof of rehabilitation, and other evidence including letters from family and friends. The Petitioner refers to events leading to his arrests and asserts that in his first arrest his spouse exaggerated events to police. He also refers to a seFond psychological evaluation, concedes that he made mistakes, and maintains that he was a victim of domestic violence in the same relationship; The Petitioner explains that his second arrest occurred during a relationship that he contends he did not want, but maintains that he feared S-F- would report him to police. He further states that S-F­threatened and lied to him. The Petitioner concedes that he made the mistake of continuing to contact her after a no contact order had been issued, but that he did so at her urging. He also states that during one argument, he used poor judgment and admits to sending S-F- threatening messages.

On appeal, the Petitioner submits a second psychological evaluation prepared by Associate Clinical Social Worker. Mr. diagnoses the Petitioner with dysthymic disorder and PTSD.4 He states that the Petitioner has endured emotional cruelty in childhood, with his ex­spouse, and in his continuous involvement with the legaL system. Mr. describes the Petitioner's relationships with D-N-E- and a former girlfriend, S-F-, and states that at the time of the events leading to his first arrest, the Petitioner was under pressure, his judgment was impaired, and he was protecting himself and his family while using poor coping skills. Mr. further opines that at his second arrest, the Petitioner was sleep deprived, living in prolonged fear, suffering from not having a relationship with his daughter from his marriage, and having no social support.

4 The evaluation was also co-signed by Psychology.

3

Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist and Doctor of

.

Matter of V-G-M-

He states that the Petitioner's decision-making was impacted by anger, and that stress caused him to lose objective awareness as he was trying to protect himself as well as his mother and brother who depend on his financial support. Mr. concludes that the Petitioner is no danger to others, that he is passive, and that he is vulnerable to manipulation.

Although the petitioner may not fall within any of the classes of persons specifically delineated at section 101(f) of the Act, he has not demonstrated his good moral character because he has committed unlawful acts which reflect adversely upon his moral character, his behavior falls below the standards of the average citizen. The Petitioner's convictions in 2013 stemmed from activity involving D-N-E-. The Petitioner asserts on appeal that when he committed the actions for which he was convicted, he was influenced by prolonged stress and abuse, and thus made bad decisions that led to his arrests. He states that his criminal history was tied to the underlying abuse he experienced. Conviction documents also show that the Petitioner was convicted in 2015 for events that occurred m and 2014 with S-F-, less than one year and one-and-a-half years, respectively, from his 2013 convictions. In addition, the arrests for his actions against S-F- came at a time when the Petitioner states he was attending domestic violence classes. Although the Petitioner argues on appeal that his criminal convictions were connected to abuse by D-N-E-, the evidence presented by the Petitioner does not establish that he would not have committed for these acts in the absence of extreme cruelty by his spouse. Regarding the Petitioner's 2015 conviction, his criminal defense attorney states that his then-girlfriend, S-F-, admitted that she had lied to police about the Petitioner assaulting her. Nonetheless, the Petitioner was convicted of and sentenced to a significant amount of time in jail for this offense, and admits to making threats to S-F-.

The Petitioner has a 'serious criminal history for which he was sentenced to significant jail time, and the submitted evidence is insufficient to overcome the Director's finding that the Petitioner has not established that he is a person of good moral character. Notwithstanding the Petitioner's assertion that he is sorry for his mistakes, that he completed a domestic violence course as ordered by the court, and that he himself suffered from abuse during his childhood and his marriage, the sequence of events indicates ongoing behavior below the standards of the average citizen in the community. Accordingly, the Petitioner does not present sufficient evidence to establish that he is a person of good moral character, as required by section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii)(II)(bb) of the Act.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter ofV-G-M-, ID# 321178 (AAO June 13, 2017)

4