U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF H-C-P-

APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: MAR. 16,2017

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)(1 )(A)(iii). Under the Violence Against Women Act (VA WA), 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.

The matter is now before us on appeal. With this appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that he is a person of 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)( 1 )(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) ofthe Act.

The eligibility requirements for approval of a VA W A petition are further explained in the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.2( c)( 1 ), which states, in pertinent part:

(vii) Good moral character. A self-petitioner will be found to lack good moral character ifhe or she is a person described in section 101(1) of the Act. Extenuating circumstances may be taken into account if the person has not been convicted of an o±Iense or offenses but admits to the commission of an act or acts that could show a

(b)(6)

Matter of H-C-P-

lack of good moral character under section 101 (f) of the Act . . . . A self-petitioner will also be found to lack good moral character, unless he or she establishes extenuating circumstances, if he or she willfully failed or refused to support dependents; or committed unlawful acts 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. A self-petitioner's claim of good moral character will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the provisions of section 10 l (f) of the Act and the standards of the average citizen in the community.

The evidentiary guidelines concerning good moral character are described m the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2), which states, in pertinent part:

(v) Good moral character. Primary evidence of the self-petitioner's good moral character is the self-petitioner's affidavit. The affidavit should be accompanied by a local police clearance or a state-issued criminal background check from each locality or state in the United States in which the self-petitioner has resided for six or more months during the 3-year period immediately preceding the filing of the self-petition. . . . . If police clearances, criminal background checks, or similar reports are not available for some or all locations, the self-petitioner may include an explanation and submit other evidence with his or her affidavit. The Service will consider other credible evidence of good moral character, such as affidavits from responsible persons who can knowledgeably attest to the self-petitioner's good moral character.

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) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(i).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Criminal History

The record of proceedings indicates that the Petitioner has the following criminal history:

1. In 2003, the Petitioner was found guilty before the district court in Arkansas, of disregarding a traffic control device, and ordered to pay

$115.00 in fines and court costs.

2. In 2006, the Petitioner plead guilty before the district court m to domestic battery and endangering child welfare, and was sentenced

to 20 days .in jail and ordered to pay $955.00 in fines and court costs.

2

(b)(6)

Matter of H-C-P-

3. In 2010, the Petitioner plead guilty before the district court in to disorderly conduct, and was sentenced to 30 days in jail and ordered to pay $100.00 in court costs; conditions were also imposed on the Petitioner not to commit any assault, battery, or disorderly conduct offenses for 12 months, and to attend and complete anger management classes within six months.

4. In 2011, the Petitioner was arrested by the Police Department for failure to pay the court costs levied as part of his sentence for the preceding crime; this charge was later dismissed when he paid the court costs in full.

Regarding the Petitioner's criminal history that occurred outside of the three-year period prior to filing the instant VA WA petition, although the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(v) only requires evidence of the Petitioner's good moral character during the three years preceding the filing of the VA WA petition, it does not limit our inquiry into the Petitioner's moral character to only this period. In fact, section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act does not prescribe any specific time period during which the Petitioner's good moral character must be established. Additionally, although the statutory provisions for self-petitioning abused spouses have been amended several times since the publication of the interim rule at 8 C.F.R. § 204.2( c), a final rule has not yet been promulgated. Notably, none of the statutory amendments changed the temporal scope of the good moral character requirement for self-petitioning abused spouses.

B. Good Moral Character

The Petitioner submitted the following evidence to the Director relative to whether he is a person of good moral character: a personal statement, letters from a counselor and a co-worker, a psychosocial assessment, a letter from the Police Department, an email from the Police Department, and a criminal history report from the Arkansas State Police. With this appeal, the Petitioner provides the following additional evidence: a second personal statement, records from the

District Court, two arrest reports and a citation to appear from the Police Department, correspondence with the circuit courts in and printed results of searches in a Arkansas state government-maintained database, and a letter regarding parenting classes.

The Director found that the evidence submitted by the Petitioner was not sufficient to establish that he is a person of good moral character. Specifically, the Director noted that the Petitioner's initial personal statement did not mention any criminal history, although the psychosocial assessment referred to the Petitioner being arrested for slapping his mother-in-law. ln addition, .the Director found that the Arkansas State Police criminal record search was performed under the Petitioner's legal name and an incorrect birthdate, although he also used eight aliases. Finally, the Director noted that the Petitioner did not provide any records with respect to his conviction for domestic battery and endangering child welfare.

3

(b)(6)

Matter of H-C-P-

The evidence submitted by the Petitioner is not sufficient to establish that the Petitioner is a person of good moral character, as required by section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii)(IJ)(bb) of the Act. The Petitioner did not mention his criminal history in his initial personal statement, and the Petitioner does not directly address his entire criminal history in his second personal statement. 1 He states in his second personal statement that, "I had fights and I was drinking too much .. . . I had to go to jail." In this second personal statement, he notes that, "I had to be in jail for 20 days but the judge got it down to 11 days," but he does not specify to which crime this sentence relates. The Petitioner also reports that he was "sad and embarrassed" to be in jail and that parenting classes helped him to control his anger and "to be a good man and a good father," but he does not identify any of his crimes or arrests or express remorse for his criminal behavior. Accordingly, the Petitioner's personal statements are not sufficient to establish that he is a person of good moral character.

The letters from a counselor and a co-worker indicate that they have known the Petitioner since 2013 and 2012, respectively, and the Petitioner is a responsible person and a good father. However, because the counselor and co-worker have not known the Petitioner for an extensive period of time and they do not indicate whether they are aware of his criminal history, their letters are not sufficiently probative regarding the Petitioner's moral character. The letter regarding parenting classes indicates that the Petitioner completed eight parenting sessions from October to December 2011, and confirms that the Petitioner did not comply with the sentence for his disorderly conduct conviction, which required him to attend and complete anger management classes within six months of July 19, 2010.

The letter from the Police Department indicates only that, starting in 2008, a record does not exist for the Petitioner under one of the names he has used, although the record for his 2010 conviction before the district court in reflects a different name. The email from the

Police Department either misspells the Petitioner's first name or refers to an additional alias. In addition, because the Petitioner reported on a Form G-325A, Biographic Information, he submitted in connection with a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, filed by his spouse that he has lived in since 2001, it is unclear why records from the Police Department were requested.L The criminal history report from the Arkansas State Police was generated based solely on a name search under one name used by the Petitioner; as a result, the report reflects only the 2006 conviction and not the 2010 conviction, which was under a different alias used by the Petitioner. The records from the district court in and the Police Department accurately reflect the Petitioner' s criminal history, although, as noted above, the Petitioner does not acknowledge all of his criminal history in his personal statements.

1 Primary evidence of good moral character is the self-petitioner's affidavit. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(v).

2 We also note that the Petitioner submitted a Form 1-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Deportation

(asylum application), in 1996, on which he indicated that he lived in California. In addition, the Petitioner rec?~ded on the asylum application that he entered the United States in February 1990, while he reported on the VA WA pet1t10n that he entered the United States in 1996.

4

(b)(6)

Matter of H-C-P-

The correspondence with the circuit courts in and includes a request from the Petitioner's attorney for records for the Petitioner under several aliases, but does not include the name in the email from the Police Department. We take administrative notice that is. located in both and , and ts located solely in In response, the Circuit Court of returned a name search under only one of the aliases with a handwritten notation that a record search may be conducted on a statewide database. The Circuit Court of replied that it does not have records under any of the aliases for the Petitioner. The printed results of searches in the statewide database reflect that searches were conducted under only three aliases of the Petitioner, and the database and its contents are not identified. Accordingly, the foregoing documents are insufficient to establish that the Petitioner is a person of good moral character.

The Petitioner's criminal record evinces conduct that falls below the standards of the average citizen in the community and adversely reflects on his good moral character pursuant to the final paragraph of section lOl(f) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(l)(vii). The evidence submitted by the Petitioner before the Director and with this appeal is not suflicient to establish that he is a person of good moral character. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his good moral character as required by section 204(a)(l )(A)(iii)(II)(bb) of the Act, and he is consequently ineligible for immigrant classification under section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter of H-C-P-, ID# 186570 (AAO Mar. 16, 2017)

5