PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge has dismissed a case filed by a man who had challenged the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services’ opinion that the Violence Against Women and Act (VAWA) does not cover acts of infidelity, according to a decision filed on May 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
VAWA grants permanent residency status to undocumented people who suffer abuse at the hands of their U.S. citizen spouses. The act came into existence out of fear that undocumented people would have no recourse in such situations, as their spouses are often their only means of attaining permanent residency status.
The act typically pertains to what it describes as instances of “extreme cruelty,” including acts of battery, forced imprisonment and forced prostitution.
The challenge, brought by Peruvian immigrant Jorge Medina Concha, contended that the act also encompasses instances of alleged infidelity. U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III, however, disagreed.
Concha had married a U.S. citizen and began to file paperwork to adjust his immigration status. However, he claims that he later discovered his wife in a compromising position with another woman. His marriage subsequently fell apart and his petition for adjustment of status was withdrawn, according to the court’s decision.
Additionally, Concha claimed that he also had found out that she had misled him about her finances and her ability to have children, according to the court’s decision. He further claimed these events had caused him severe mental anguish and depression to the extent that he should qualify as an abused spouse under VAWA.
After the USCIS rejected his VAWA petition, he appealed the decision to the USCIS administrative appeals office, but the original decision was upheld. He then sought relief in federal court.
Bartle, however, held that USCIS' decision could only be overturned if the agency considered evidence that Congress did not mean for it to consider or if its decision was implausible.
Bartle found that USCIS’ refusal to include infidelity under the umbrella of VAWA was plausible and not reversible.
Bartle said that the act’s use of the phrase “extreme cruelty” was intended to exclude acts of mere unkindness or meanness. In other words, Bartle held that it was reasonable for USCIS to determine that infidelity is not an act of extreme cruelty.
“Marital infidelity and lies are not expressly covered by the regulation and are not similar to the types of conduct enumerated in the regulation,” Bartle said in the decision. “Moreover, nothing in the regulation requires the USCIS to categorize acts as ‘extreme cruelty’ simply because they may cause [a] mental injury.”