## Facts

- Esperanza Alvarado de Rodriguez, a Mexican national, obtained conditional permanent resident status through marriage to a U.S. citizen, Melecio Villafranco.
- The marriage deteriorated; the couple separated, and Villafranco refused to file the joint petition to remove conditions and submitted an affidavit seeking to withdraw his prior immigration sponsorship.
- Alvarado sought a waiver of the joint-filing requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B), asserting the marriage was entered into in good faith and that she was not at fault for failing to jointly file.
- At a 2005 hearing, Alvarado presented live testimony (including from herself, her daughter, and a coworker) and documentary evidence supporting a bona fide marital relationship.
- The Immigration Judge found Alvarado credible, characterized her evidence as consistent and supported by documentation, and granted the waiver.
- The government relied heavily on Villafranco’s written affidavit (he did not testify); the IJ discounted it in light of the live testimony and record evidence.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the IJ, giving substantial weight to the affidavit and concluding Alvarado failed to prove good faith, while stating it was applying clear-error review.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a good-faith waiver when the challenge was framed as legal error in the BIA’s standard of review.
2. Whether the BIA misapplied the required clear-error standard by effectively conducting de novo review of the IJ’s factual findings and credibility determinations.
3. Whether, applying the correct standard of review, the BIA could reject the IJ’s good-faith marriage finding without identifying clear error.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held it had jurisdiction to review whether the BIA applied the correct legal standard and remained within its permitted scope of review.
- The court held the BIA committed legal error by reweighing evidence and substituting its view of the facts despite purporting to apply clear-error review.
- The court reversed the BIA’s order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- The BIA must review an IJ’s factual findings and credibility determinations for clear error and may not independently reweigh evidence or make new factual determinations absent clear error.
- A reviewing court evaluates whether the BIA actually applied the correct standard of review; merely reciting “clear error” does not insulate a decision that, in practice, reassesses facts and credibility.
- A BIA reversal that relies on evidence discounted by the IJ, without identifying specific clearly erroneous IJ findings, reflects improper de novo fact review and constitutes legal error.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit reversed because the BIA, while invoking clear-error review, effectively reweighed the record and displaced the IJ’s credited testimony and findings; the case was remanded for agency action applying the proper deferential review of IJ factual determinations.


Alvarado de Rodriguez v. Holder, 585 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 2009)