[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-138064-105":59,"doc-detail-138064-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","jim-willis-kagumbas-interim-decision-4030","Jim Willis Kagumbas - Interim Decision #4030","","This interim decision addresses an appeal in a U.S. immigration case involving adjustment of status sought through marriage to a U.S. citizen. The respondent’s initial adjustment application was denied by an Immigration Judge, leading to appellate review after briefs and oral argument. The Board dismisses the appeal in part and sustains it in part, remanding the record for further proceedings. The decision emphasizes the immigration court’s authority to examine the bona fides of a marriage when adjudicating adjustment eligibility under section 245(a).",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/jim-willis-kagumbas-interim-decision-4030/138064/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/jim-willis-kagumbas-interim-decision-4030/138064.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Oliver Hayes","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-20","2026-08-23",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the case’s procedural posture on appeal?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"An Immigration Judge denied the respondent’s adjustment application, and the respondent appealed. The Board dismisses the appeal in part and sustains it in part, remanding for further proceedings.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"On what basis did the respondent seek adjustment of status?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The respondent sought adjustment based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen spouse, supported by an approved Form I-130 petition filed by the spouse.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why does the decision discuss the bona fides of a marriage?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The Board notes that, when considering adjustment of status under section 245(a), an Immigration Judge has authority to inquire into whether the marriage is bona fide.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},138064,1787473902,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":39,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":46},687207020761,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 400 (BIA 2021) Interim Decision \\#4030  \nMatter of Jim Willis KAGUMBAS, Respondent  \nDecided October 13, 2021  \nU.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals  \nAn Immigration Judge has the authority to inquire into the bona fides ofa marriage when considering an application for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2018) .  \nFOR RESPONDENT: James F. Epo, Esquire, Houston, Texas  \nFOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Meggan G. Johnson, Associate Legal Advisor  \nBEFORE: Board Panel: MULLANE, COUCH, and OWEN, Appellate Immigration Judges.  \nMULLANE, Appellate Immigration Judge:  \nIn a decision dated January 10, 2018, the Immigration Judge denied the respondent’s application for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2012) . The respondent appealed from that decision. Both the respondent and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) submitted briefs on appeal and we heard oral argument on February 20, 2020.1 The appeal will be dismissed, in part, and sustained, in part. The record will be remanded for further proceedings.  \nI. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS  \nThe respondent, a native and citizen of Kenya, was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant on an F-1 student visa on August 26, 2006. His nonimmigrant status was terminated on October 17, 2007, because he failed  \n1 Following oral argument, Appellate Immigration Judge Edward F. Kelly retired from the Board of Immigration Appeals, and Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Charles Adkins-Blanch withdrew from the panel to serve as Acting Deputy Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Appellate Immigration Judges V. Stuart Couch and Sirce E. Owen replaced them on the panel. Both Appellate Immigration Judges Couch and Owen have familiarized themselves with the record of proceedings, including a transcript of the oral argument.  \nCite as 28 I&N Dec. 400 (BIA 2021) Interim Decision \\#4030  \nto maintain full-time study at San Jacinto College. He remained in the United States without authorization. The DHS served the respondent with a notice to appear charging him with deportability pursuant to section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) (2012), for remaining in the United States longer than permitted. The respondent conceded the charge but filed an application for adjustment of status with the Immigration Court.  \nThe respondent’s adjustment of status claim is based on his marriage to his United States citizen wife, whom he married on July 23, 2013. His wife filed a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, on the respondent’s behalf, which was approved by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) . The respondent filed an application for adjustment of status with the USCIS. However, while the application was pending, the DHS commenced removed proceedings.  \nAt the initial hearing before the Immigration Judge on November 9, 2016, the respondent sought to terminate removal proceedings to apply for adjustment of status based on an approved I-130 visa petition as the spouse of a United States citizen before the USCIS. After the DHS counsel indicated that she did not oppose termination, the Immigration Judge offered the respondent the option of a hearing on the adjustment application in Immigration Court in July or termination of proceedings so that the respondent could pursue adjustment with the USCIS. The respondent, through counsel, elected to pursue his adjustment of status application in Immigration Court, because the Immigration Court could hear the request  \n2 sooner.  \nThe Immigration Judge held a merits hearing on the respondent’s application for adjustment of status on July 26, 2017. At the hearing, the respondent, his wife, and his mother-in-law testified.  \nThe respondent testified that he resides in Houston, Texas,","cbCaikXPjynmRyAs","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikXPjynmRyAs","pdf",172250,"English","# Procedural History and Facts\n## Immigration Judge’s Denial and Appeal\n## Marriage-Based Adjustment Claim\n## Testimony at the Merits Hearing","[{\"question\":\"What is the case’s procedural posture on appeal?\",\"answer\":\"An Immigration Judge denied the respondent’s adjustment application, and the respondent appealed. The Board dismisses the appeal in part and sustains it in part, remanding for further proceedings.\"},{\"question\":\"On what basis did the respondent seek adjustment of status?\",\"answer\":\"The respondent sought adjustment based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen spouse, supported by an approved Form I-130 petition filed by the spouse.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the decision discuss the bona fides of a marriage?\",\"answer\":\"The Board notes that, when considering adjustment of status under section 245(a), an Immigration Judge has authority to inquire into whether the marriage is bona fide.\"}]","Jim Willis Kagumbas - Interim Decision #4030 | PDF"]