Friday, August 09, 2013

Ching v. Mayorkas (9th Cir. - Aug. 7, 2013)

I know that some people might disagree.  But it does seem to me -- as it does to Judge Thomas (and the rest of the panel) -- that when you accuse someone of a sham marriage based entirely on an affidavit of their now ex-spouse, and on that basis deny them permission to live in the U.S., the other side should have a chance to cross-examine the ex-spouse at an evidentiary hearing.  When there's a stark contrast between the testimony of two people, a factfinder should decide who's lying.

Mind you, from what I've read, I think there's a darn good chance that Teresita Ching did indeed pay at least one person to marry her, and that she should accordingly live elsewhere.  But she should nonetheless have a reasonable opportunity to try to convince a factfinder otherwise.