Proving a Bona Fide Marriage for U.S. Green Card Approval

For immigrants seeking a marriage-based green card in the United States, one of the most critical hurdles is proving that the marriage is bona fide – meaning it was entered into in good faith, not simply to evade immigration laws. In immigration law, a bona fide marriage is essentially a real marriage where the couple intended to establish a life together as husband and wife at the time they wed. myattorneyusa.com. This legal standard may sound straightforward, but applying it to real-life situations can be complicated. The 1978 federal court case Chan v. Bell, 464 F. Supp. 125 (D.D.C. 1978), remains a cornerstone case illustrating how the law distinguishes between a valid-but-troubled marriage and a sham marriage. In this extensive look, we’ll explore what counts as a bona fide marriage under U.S. immigration law, drawing lessons from Chan v. Bell and subsequent developments.

The Legal Standard: Intent at the Time of Marriage

Under U.S. immigration law (specifically Section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA), a U.S. citizen may petition for their spouse to immigrate as an “immediate relative.” This category is not subject to the usual visa quotas. However, for the petition to be approved, the couple must demonstrate that the marriage is genuine and not entered into solely for an immigration benefit. In practical terms, this means proving the marriage was entered into in good faith that both spouses intended to build a life together at the time of the marriage. myattorneyusa.com. The focus is on the couple’s intent at the inception of the marriage, not on how the marriage turned out later.

U.S. courts and immigration authorities have long held that a fraudulent or sham marriage – one entered into primarily to circumvent immigration laws – does not qualify for immigration benefits. myattorneyusa.com. In other words, if the main purpose of getting married was to get a green card (as opposed to establishing a life together), the marriage is not bona fide in the eyes of the law. This principle was clearly stated by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and has been echoed by courts: “The central question is whether the bride and groom intended to establish a life together at the time they were married.”myattorneyusa.com If the answer is yes, the marriage is bona fide even if the marriage later faces challenges or ends in divorce. If the answer is no (one or both parties never intended to live as a real married couple), then it’s a sham marriage that cannot support an immigration petition.

Burden of proof: The responsibility is on the U.S. citizen (or permanent resident) petitioner and their spouse to prove the marriage is bona fide. In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner must establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidencejustice.gov. “Preponderance of the evidence” is a legal standard meaning more likely than not. It’s a lower threshold than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but it still requires the couple to present enough evidence to show that it’s more likely true than not true that they married for genuine reasons. If U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) suspects fraud, they must back up that suspicion with evidence and give the petitioner a chance to rebut it. justice.gov. Ultimately, though, if the couple meets their burden and the evidence leans in favor of the marriage being genuine, the law says the petition should be approved.

Intent is key, outcome is not: A crucial aspect of the legal standard is that it looks at the couple’s intent at the time of marriage. Whether the marriage is currently thriving, struggling, or even no longer intact is not, by itself, the deciding factor. A couple could have a sincere marriage that later falls apart it’s still a bona fide marriage under the law, because it was bona fide at inception. Conversely, a couple could stay married for many years, but if it was secretly an arrangement for a green card from the start (no real intention of a life together), it has never been a bona fide marriage in the legal sense. The U.S. Supreme Court underscored this idea in Lutwak v. United States, a 1953 case involving wartime “proxy” marriages: even if a marriage is valid under state law, it won’t protect you if the true intent was fraudulent – compliance with formal marriage laws is “immaterial” if the couple never intended to live as husband and wife. justice.gov. In short, U.S. immigration law defers to state law on whether a marriage is legally valid, but it overlays its own requirement of good-faith intent.

Proving a Bona Fide Marriage: Evidence and Examples

How do you show that your marriage is bona fide? There is no single “magic” document or proof that will conclusively establish a real marriage, and USCIS cannot require any one specific form of evidence to prove good faith. Instead, couples are encouraged to provide an array of documentation and testimony to demonstrate their life together. myattorneyusa.com myattorneyusa.com. Common examples include:

Joint financial documents: Evidence that the spouses have intermixed their finances or shared responsibility, such as joint bank account statements, joint credit card bills, joint insurance policies, or joint tax returns. myattorneyusa.com.
Shared residential evidence: A lease or mortgage showing both spouses as tenants/owners of a shared home, utility bills or other mail addressed to both at the same address, etc. myattorneyusa.com.
Photos and correspondence: Photographs of the couple together over time ideally in different places, with each other’s families and friends, and at special occasions (weddings, holidays, birthdays). Personal correspondence, travel itineraries for trips taken together or to visit one another, and phone/text records can also show an ongoing relationship.
Children and family evidence: Birth certificates of children born to the marriage are strong evidence of a life together. Even evidence of shared pet ownership or plans for a family can help illustrate a genuine relationship.
Affidavits from others: Written statements from family members, friends, religious leaders, or others who know the couple and can attest to the relationship’s genuineness describing, for example, how they met the couple, observed their relationship develop, and believe the marriage is real.
Evidence of day-to-day life and shared experiences: This can include anything from wedding memorabilia (invitations, receipts, guest lists) to evidence of an established courtship (letters, emails, chat logs from when the couple was dating), and even documents listing the spouse as an emergency contact or beneficiary (for example, employment records or medical forms listing the other spouse).

This list is not exhaustive. myattorneyusa.com. Any evidence that tends to show the couple has combined their lives or truly planned a future together can be relevant. Importantly, the absence of certain types of documents does not automatically mean the marriage is fake. For instance, some couples may not have joint bank accounts due to personal preferences, or they might live with relatives and not have a lease in both names. USCIS officers are supposed to look at the totality of the evidence. They may also interview the couple (often referred to as a marriage interview or Stokes interview in some jurisdictions) to assess the credibility of the marriage. At the interview, the spouses might be asked questions about each other’s lives ranging from the basics (birthdays, significant events) to the personal (daily routines, habits, etc.) to ensure their stories align and reflect a real shared life.

The key is that the evidence, taken as a whole, should indicate a shared life. Minor inconsistencies or unconventional aspects of a relationship (for example, periods of long-distance living, cultural practices like arranged marriage, or language barriers between spouses) do not by themselves invalidate a marriage. USCIS is looking for confirmation that, despite any challenges, the couple entered the marriage with the intent to be life partners. As long as you can convince the adjudicator that “we married because we love each other and wanted a life together, not just for papers”, you have met the legal standard of a bona fide marriage.

The Case of Chan v. Bell: When a Real Marriage Breaks Down

One of the most cited court decisions in this area is Chan v. Bell (D.D.C. 1978), which vividly illustrates how immigration law treats a valid but troubled marriage. The case involved Ah Kow Chan, a Malaysian citizen, and Laurel Chan, a U.S. citizen. The couple had known each other for years (they met as college students in Tennessee), had a lengthy courtship, and eventually married in Tennessee. They lived together after marriage, consummated the marriage, and even jointly purchased property as a couple. By all accounts, the marriage was legally valid under state law and initially genuine in the eyes of those who knew them.

However, as sometimes happens, the relationship hit rocky ground not long after the wedding. A few months after filing the immigrant petition for her husband, Mrs. Chan informed the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS, the agency that preceded USCIS) that she and her husband had separated due to marital difficulties. They began living apart in July 1975 less than a year into the marriage. Importantly, they did not divorce or legally separate; they remained legally married and even maintained an amicable relationship, jointly holding some property, but they were no longer cohabiting as a couple.

When INS learned of this separation, they denied Mrs. Chan’s I-130 petition to classify Mr. Chan as her immediate relative spouse. The sole reason for the denial was the agency’s conclusion that the marriage was no longer “viable” in other words, INS believed that because the couple was no longer living together, their marriage had essentially failed and should not be recognized for immigration purposes. INS was relying on a then existing doctrine (from cases like Matter of Sosa, a 1976 BIA decision) that introduced the idea of a “marriage viability” test. Under that now-discredited test, even if a marriage was legally valid and not originally fraudulent, an immigration petition could be denied if the marriage was not deemed likely to continue or had ceased to exist as a practical matter.

Mr. Chan challenged the denial in federal court, arguing that INS had no legal basis to impose a “viability” requirement. Judge Harold H. Greene of the U.S. District Court for D.C. agreed with the Chans, delivering a decision that firmly rejected the INS’s approach. The court’s reasoning in Chan v. Bell can be summarized as follows:

No “viability” requirement in the statute: The INA provisions for immediate relative spouses say nothing about a marriage needing to remain happy or the couple living together. The law simply says if a U.S. citizen’s spouse is eligible and the facts in the petition are true, the Attorney General (now DHS/USCIS) “is required to approve” the petition. There is no mention of ongoing marital harmony or a durability test in the statute. In fact, the INA’s definition of “spouse” excludes only situations where the marriage was a proxy ceremony and the couple never met thereafter – and even then, only if the marriage was not consummated. Congress explicitly carved out that narrow exception, but did not exclude couples who separate or encounter marital trouble. INS had essentially invented an extra requirement, which the court found impermissible.
No regulatory basis either: The court noted that neither the Department of Justice nor INS had any regulation requiring a marriage to be “viable” for a petition to be approved. To the contrary, the regulations in force (then 8 C.F.R. § 204.2) required only a valid marriage certificate and proof of termination of any prior marriages, and the revocation regulation (8 C.F.R. § 205.1) allowed revocation of an approved petition if the marriage is legally terminated (e.g. by divorce) – not simply because the couple separated. This suggested that as long as a marriage is legally intact (not divorced) and was not a sham, the petition should remain valid.
Prior case law contradicted INS’s stance: Chan v. Bell cited a then-recent appellate case, Whetstone v. INS (9th Cir. 1977), which involved a somewhat similar scenario in the context of a visa for a fiancé(e)-turned-spouse. In Whetstone, the Ninth Circuit stated: “We find no requirement in the statute that… a marriage, once lawfully performed according to state law, is to be deemed insufficient proof of a valid marriage merely because at some later time the marriage is either terminated, or the parties separate. … There is no requirement that a marriage, entered into in good faith, must last any certain number of days, months or years. Much less is there any requirement that a bona fide and lasting marital relationship (whatever that may mean) exists as of the time the INS questions the validity of the marriage.”. In other words, if a marriage was lawfully entered into in good faith, it doesn’t have an expiration date or minimum duration in the eyes of the law. The Chan court found this reasoning persuasive and directly applicable.
State law controls marriage, not INS: Judge Greene emphasized that it’s the states that govern marriage and divorce, and that USCIS cannot simply ignore a marriage that remains legally valid under state law. The Chans were still married – no court had ended their marriage. For the federal government to declare the marriage a nullity (absent fraud) would undermine state authority and had no basis in federal law. The only legally recognized way to end a marriage is divorce or death, none of which had occurred.
**Focus on fraud **(the only exception): Finally, the court noted that the only valid basis to deny a spousal visa petition (apart from the spouses not actually being married or other statutory ineligibilities) is fraud i.e., if the marriage was not bona fide at inception. justice.gov. In the Chans’ case, there was no evidence whatsoever that the marriage was a sham at the start. They had a typical married life, however short-lived. The INS’s denial was based purely on the prediction that the marriage would not continue, which is not the same as saying it was fake from the beginning.

After laying out these points, the district court in Chan v. Bell held in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Chan. It declared that INS had no authority to impose a “viability” test on the marriage, and as long as the marriage was not legally ended and was not a sham, the petition should be approved. The decision meant that Mr. Chan was to be recognized as Laurel Chan’s spouse for immigration purposes, despite their separation. The court essentially ordered INS to process the case without the invented requirement of the couple still living together.

This case was a strong rebuke to the INS’s attempt to second-guess the authenticity of a marriage based on later developments. Judge Greene even pointed out that allowing INS to pick and choose which marriages count as “real” beyond the statute’s terms would give the agency “unreasonably wide, and essentially unreviewable” discretion – raising due process concerns. In simpler terms, it’s not the government’s role to play marriage counselor or moral arbiter; if the couple was legitimately married and honest in their intent, the government must honor that, unless and until the marriage is ended by law.

Why Chan v. Bell Matters (No “Viability Test” in Immigration Law)

The Chan v. Bell decision has had a lasting impact on U.S. immigration policy for marriage-based cases. It cemented a few key principles that immigrants and immigration lawyers still rely on today:

A short or troubled marriage can still be bona fide: There is no requirement in U.S. immigration law that a marriage must be successful or long-lasting to be the basis for a green card. All that matters is that the marriage was bona fide at its inception. A couple that separates soon after the wedding (or even after the green card is approved) is not automatically guilty of fraud. As one court put it, the law does not mandate that a marriage “last any certain number of days, months or years” to be considered valid for immigration purposes. Duration is not the test intent is. Real life can interfere with the best intentions, and marriages can fail for genuine reasons that have nothing to do with immigration.
No “ongoing marriage” requirement in the statute: Chan underscored that the INA defines a spouse in terms of a legal marriage, not in terms of a happy relationship. Nowhere does the law say a petition can be denied because the couple isn’t living together or because the romance fizzled out. As long as the marriage hasn’t been legally terminated (and wasn’t a sham to start with), immigration benefits cannot be denied solely due to the marriage being in trouble. justice.gov justice.gov. In fact, following Chan v. Bell, the BIA explicitly overruled its prior “viability” doctrine. In Matter of McKee (BIA 1980), the Board stated that “where the parties enter into a valid marriage, and there is nothing to show they have since obtained a legal separation or dissolution of that marriage, a visa petition… should not be denied solely because the parties are not residing together.”justice.gov. The separation of the spouses “in and of itself” is not a valid basis to deny a petition for lack of viability. justice.gov. What matters is that at the time of marrying, they intended it to be a life together. justice.gov.
State law marriages are respected by federal law: Unless a marriage is invalid under state law or falls under a specific INA exclusion (such as certain proxy marriages not followed by consummation), USCIS must recognize it as a valid marriage. The federal immigration authorities cannot arbitrarily declare a marriage void because they feel the couple isn’t acting “married enough.” Chan v. Bell emphasized that immigration agencies cannot override state law definitions of marriage by imposing their own viability or subjective relationship tests. This principle is especially important in unusual or culturally distinct situations for example, long-distance marriages or marriages where spouses have separate living arrangements for work or family reasons. If the marriage is legally valid and the couple intended it in good faith, it counts.
Fraud is the only valid reason to deny a properly filed spousal petition (aside from legal ineligibility): Both Chan and subsequent BIA cases make clear that the sole exception to the above rules is fraud. If the evidence shows that the marriage was a sham “entered into for the primary purpose of circumventing the immigration laws” then the petition must be denied. myattorneyusa.com justice.gov. In fact, the law is very strict on this point: under INA §204(c), if an applicant is found to have attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for immigration purposes, any future petition for them based on marriage will be barred. USCIS will permanently refuse future spousal petitions for someone who engaged in marriage fraud. Because of this high stake, officers scrutinize cases for “substantial and probative evidence” of fraud before denying on that basis. justice.gov. In Chan’s case, there was no such evidence, all signs pointed to a real marriage that simply didn’t work out. Therefore, there was no lawful basis to deny the petition.

In summary, Chan v. Bell matters because it drew a clear line between a bona fide marriage that encounters difficulties (which is still protected under the law) and a sham marriage (which is not protected at all). The decision reinforced that immigration agencies must follow the law and cannot inject subjective judgments about the quality or longevity of a marriage beyond what Congress has written. This protects immigrants in genuine (if imperfect) marriages from being unfairly denied due to circumstances like temporary separations, marital spats, or other personal issues that are unrelated to the original sincerity of the marriage.

Life After Chan v. Bell: Evolving Policies and Modern Implications

The Chan v. Bell case had an immediate influence on immigration authorities. Following the decision (and similar rulings by the Ninth Circuit in cases like Dabaghian v. Civiletti, 1979. justice.gov), the INS officially revised its stance. By 1980, the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of McKee and Matter of Boromand acknowledged that the “marriage viability” requirement was not supported by law and would no longer be followed. justice.gov justice.gov. The BIA explicitly stated that the issue in visa petition cases is not whether the marriage is still thriving, but whether the marriage was entered into in good faith (not for immigration fraud) in the first place. justice.gov. In Matter of Boromand (BIA 1980), the Board wrote: “Under Chan and McKee, the issue is not whether there is a presently subsisting or ‘viable’ marriage (assuming there is no legal separation or dissolution of the marriage), but rather whether the marriage was entered into for the primary purpose of circumventing the immigration laws.”justice.gov. This brought the administrative practice back in line with the statute and court rulings.

However, these developments raised a new concern: What if a couple did marry in good faith, but then separated or divorced shortly after, allowing the immigrant spouse to still obtain a green card? Some in Congress and INS worried that this could be a “loophole” – that people could game the system by entering a real marriage that they planned not to continue after the green card was secured. In other words, even if the marriage wasn’t a sham at inception, the lack of any requirement to stay together beyond the interview could be exploited.

The 1986 Marriage Fraud Amendments – Two-Year Conditional Residence

In response to these fraud concerns, Congress passed the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 (IMFA). This law didn’t change the definition of a bona fide marriage or reintroduce a viability test directly, but it added a significant hurdle for recent marriages. Under IMFA, when a marriage has existed for less than two years at the time the immigrant spouse is granted permanent residence, the immigrant does not immediately receive a regular (“permanent”) green card. Instead, they are granted conditional permanent resident (CPR) status for two years (a 2-year conditional green card). justice.gov. Near the end of that two-year period, the couple must file a joint petition to remove conditions (Form I-751) and provide updated evidence that the marriage is bona fide and “the family unit is still in existence.”justice.gov Essentially, the law created a built-in follow-up to ensure that the marriage wasn’t just for show: if by the two-year mark the marriage has fallen apart, USCIS will take a very close look to see if it might have been fraudulent from the start.

If the couple is still together, they appear for an interview (in most cases) and if all checks out, the conditions are removed and the immigrant obtains a normal 10-year green card. If the couple has divorced or separated during those two years, all is not lost but the immigrant now must file a request to waive the joint filing requirement. One common waiver is the “good faith marriage” waiver, where the immigrant can still get the conditions removed if they can prove the marriage was genuine at inception but ended in divorce (or is no longer viable) for reasons beyond their control. This is very much in line with the Chan v. Bell principle: USCIS will not punish someone solely for a marriage ending, as long as they can show it was real to begin with. The difference under the 1986 law is that USCIS gets a second chance to evaluate the marriage’s bona fides using the couple’s additional two years of history (or lack thereof) as evidence. In effect, Congress didn’t undo Chan’s core holding, but it did create a mechanism to deter and catch fraud by requiring an “actual family unit” to still exist after two years or a convincing explanation of why it doesn’t justice.gov.

For immigrants and their lawyers today, the 1986 changes mean that the timeline of the marriage can matter procedurally. A bona fide marriage that ends too soon (within those first two years) will lead to extra scrutiny and the need for a waiver application. But in substance, the standard remains: was it bona fide or not? If yes, the immigrant spouse can still ultimately get permanent residence (for example, a divorced immigrant can get the condition removed on good-faith grounds by proving the marriage’s authenticity). If no, then the petition or the I-751 will be denied, and the immigrant could face removal and a bar on future immigration benefits due to fraud.

Modern USCIS Practice: Scrutiny without “Second-Guessing”

Despite the clear legal standards established by cases like Chan v. Bell and the framework of the IMFA, USCIS officers today still carefully scrutinize marriage-based petitions. Their goal is to detect sham marriages, so they look for red flags that might indicate a marriage of convenience. These red flags can include: very short courtship before marriage, significant age, cultural, or language differences between spouses, inconsistent or sparse documentation of cohabitation, previous marriage fraud issues, offers of payment to the U.S. spouse, and so on. If a couple has separated or has unusual living arrangements, this can also be a red flag.

However, USCIS is not allowed to deny a case just because a marriage looks imperfect. They must have evidence or at least articulable reasons to believe there was no genuine marital intent. For instance, if a husband and wife are no longer living together at the time of the interview, the officer will likely ask more questions and may require additional evidence to ensure the marriage wasn’t a sham. The separation is considered a “relevant factor” in assessing intent. justice.gov – after all, if a couple split up immediately after the wedding, one might suspect they never intended to truly merge lives. The officer might ask: “Why did you separate? Are you filing for divorce? Describe the circumstances.” The couple (or the remaining petitioner, if one spouse isn’t present) should be prepared to explain the situation honestly. Perhaps there were financial or work-related reasons for living apart, or maybe the relationship had genuine issues that led to a trial separation. What’s important is that the officer be convinced that at the time of marriage, they intended to stay together. If that is credible, then under Chan v. Bell and its progeny, the petition should not be denied solely because the marriage didn’t turn out as hoped. justice.gov.

It’s worth noting that if a couple is legally separated (through a formal legal separation agreement or court order) or divorced while a petition or application is pending, that is usually a different story. A legal separation or divorce generally means the marriage relationship has been formally ended or at least definitively curtailed. The BIA has held that a visa petition may be denied if the parties have legally separated pursuant to a formal written agreement, because that suggests an official end of the marital union (even if not a divorce). ilw.com. USCIS’s policy (formerly in the Adjudicator’s Field Manual) likewise instructs officers that they may deny a petition if the couple obtained a legal separation before the case is adjudicated, since the spouses are no longer considered to be in a marital union in any real senseosbar.org. In contrast, an informal separation (just living apart without any legal action) should not by itself bar the immigration benefitosbar.org. The couple is still married in the eyes of the law, and they might reconcile, there’s simply no requirement that they cohabit every single day of the process. So, while separation can invite scrutiny, it does not equal fraud or automatic denial.

Finally, it’s important for immigrants to understand that ending a marriage shortly after obtaining a green card can invite a review by USCIS, but it does not automatically lead to loss of status. If the green card was a two-year conditional card, the immigrant will have to address the issue during the I-751 stage as discussed. If it was a regular (10-year) green card because the marriage was more than two years old at approval, USCIS generally won’t proactively cancel someone’s residency just because of a divorce. They could seek to rescind residency in rare cases if they obtain evidence that the marriage was fake from the start, but they carry the burden of proof in such rescission proceedings. U.S. law protects immigrants in bona fide marriages, even if those marriages don’t last forever. In fact, the BIA has noted that a marriage that was “legally valid but ‘factually dead’ (nonviable) at the time of adjustment of status” cannot be the basis for rescinding someone’s residence, absent evidence of fraud. justice.gov. Put another way, if you played by the rules and married for love (or honest reasons), the government cannot take away your status just because your American dream marriage became a nightmare later on.

Conclusion: Bona Fide Means Real, Not Perfect

Through the lens of Chan v. Bell and subsequent laws, we see that U.S. immigration law strives to strike a balance in marriage-based immigration cases. On one hand, the government is vigilant against #MarriageFraud – those rare but sensational cases where two people stage a marriage with no intent to live together, just to procure a green card. On the other hand, the law (backed by court decisions) is empathetic to the reality that real marriages can be complex. Couples may fight, separate, or even divorce, and yet everything about the marriage could have been genuine at the start. The key is the good faith of the spouses when they said “I do.”

For immigrants and immigration lawyers navigating these cases, the takeaway from Chan v. Bell is powerful: A bona fide marriage doesn’t have to be a fairy tale; it just has to be honest. As long as a couple truly intended to form a life together in marriage, the law is on their side. justice.gov. USCIS cannot deny a properly documented spousal petition on a whim or because the couple’s relationship isn’t perfect. Even if the marriage ends in heartbreak, what matters for immigration is that it began with heart.

In practice, couples should be prepared to document their lives and answer questions openly, especially if their situation isn’t standard. Immigration officers are trained to distinguish between the normal ups-and-downs of a genuine relationship and the tell-tale signs of a sham. If a case is denied wrongfully, Chan v. Bell and the cases that followed provide a strong legal precedent to challenge such decisions. They remind the authorities that intent – not longevity, not living arrangements, not cultural norms – is the ultimate test of a marriage’s bona fides in immigration law.

In the end, Chan v. Bell remains a landmark because it affirms a fundamental principle: America’s immigration system, like its family law system, recognizes the authenticity of human relationships in all their variety. A marriage counts as a marriage unless you can prove it was fake. Real marriages, even if short, even if imperfect, count as real. And real love (or at least real intent to share a life) is what the law honors when allowing someone to become a permanent resident through marriage.

#ImmigrationLaw #BonaFideMarriage #GreenCard #USCIS #ChanvBell

Sources:

Chan v. Bell, 464 F. Supp. 125 (D.D.C. 1978) – (landmark case rejecting the INS “marriage viability” test and affirming that bona fide intent at marriage is the key).
Matter of McKee, 17 I&N Dec. 332 (BIA 1980) – (BIA decision adopting Chan; holds that absence of cohabitation is not sole ground to deny a petition)justice.gov justice.gov.
Matter of Boromand, 17 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1980) – (BIA reiteration that the focus is on intent at marriage, not a “presently viable” marriage)justice.gov.
Whetstone v. INS, 561 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir. 1977) – (prior case finding no duration or viability requirement in statute for spouse visas).
Dabaghian v. Civiletti, 607 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1979) – (9th Cir. case confirming that a legally valid, non-sham marriage suffices for immigration, even if the couple separated)justice.gov.
Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-639 – (established the two-year conditional residence requirement to deter sham marriages)justice.gov.
USCIS Policy Manual and Adjudicator’s Field Manual – (guidance confirming that legal separation or divorce before adjudication can negate a petition, but an informal separation should not, per Matter of Lenning, 17 I&N Dec. 476 (BIA 1980))osbar.org.
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983) – (BIA decision summarizing bona fide marriage factors and burden of proof; defines sham marriage and evidentiary factors)myattorneyusa.com myattorneyusa.com.
Matter of P. Singh, 27 I&N Dec. 598 (BIA 2019) – (BIA clarifying burden of proof and standards in marriage-fraud determinations; notes petitioner must prove bona fides by preponderance of evidence)justice.gov.

What Counts as a Bona Fide Marriage for Immigration? A Legal Look Through the Lens of Chan v. Bell – Alexander Chanthunya, LL.M