Marriage Fraud Victims Unite: Codias Law’s BIA Petition Draws National Media Attention
This morning, The Daily Caller reported that Codias Law has formally filed a petition with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)—backed by more than 140 fraud victims, their families, and other concerned Americans—demanding long-overdue action to protect U.S. citizens from immigration marriage fraud.
Media Story
The article, entitled “Victims Urge Trump Admin To Tackle Migrant Marriage Fraud Once And For All,” describes a national petition campaign led by Codias Law calling on the BIA to adopt formal procedures allowing U.S. citizens to challenge fraudulently approved marriage-based green card petitions.
In a system that routinely provides foreign nationals with layers of appeal rights, waivers, and procedural safeguards, U.S. citizens have been left with no formal process to seek redress—even when clear evidence of fraud emerges after the fact. The piece highlights the disparity in procedural protections and the growing frustration among victims whose concerns remain unaddressed by federal agencies.
The Petition
Codias Law’s petition urges the BIA to issue formal guidance establishing a process for citizen sponsors to challenge unlawfully approved I-130 marriage petitions under INA § 204(c), based on newly discovered evidence of fraud.
The petition invokes existing authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(5), which grants the Board appellate jurisdiction over DHS “decisions”—including both approvals and denials. Historically, the BIA has exercised this power only to benefit foreign nationals. Codias Law’s petition asks the Board to extend this same procedural recognition to U.S. citizens.
To assist the Board in implementation, Codias Law submitted a set of model implementation documents:
Model Form EOIR-29, revised for U.S. citizen appellants
Model Practice Manual Revisions, creating clear procedural rules
Model Sua Sponte Certification Order, enabling the Board to review cases where DHS fails to act
These reforms require no act of Congress—only the will to enforce the law on behalf of U.S. citizens.
The filing follows Brown’s June 2025 testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, where he presented a damning case for a national immigration marriage fraud crisis.
The Deep Problem
The significance of today’s national coverage extends far beyond the petition itself. It lays bare a systemic breakdown—one in which career bureaucrats routinely undermine enforcement of immigration laws passed by Congress. Internal antifraud safeguards have been quietly dismantled, and both DHS and DOJ have resisted enforcing the marriage fraud bar at INA § 204(c) and the associated criminal statute under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c).
FOIA disclosures confirm the scale of the crisis: USCIS denies virtually 0% of marriage-based petitions for fraud, and approves over 80% of waivers, even in cases flagged for fraud or misrepresentation. These statistics reveal institutional defiance—not administrative oversight.
The implications go well beyond personal injustice. Marriage fraud creates serious national security vulnerabilities—foreign nationals have used sham marriages to infiltrate sensitive work environments, evade background checks, and gain unlawful access to U.S. institutions. This threat is magnified by scale: marriage-based green cards remain the single largest immigration category, accounting for nearly one‑quarter of all lawful permanent resident admissions—about 300,000 annually.
Brown issued the following statement on today’s news:
“The Trump administration has begun to restore the confidence of U.S. citizens in our immigration system. Removing convicted criminals is a good start—but it’s the tip of the iceberg,” said Cody M. Brown. “By adopting our model procedures for BIA Fraud Appeals, the Board can stop the bleeding for U.S. citizens who have also been victimized by unindicted felons due to the systemic inaction of federal agencies. If the Board refuses, we are prepared to take this issue to federal court. Even if the existing regulation did not already authorize appeals from approved I-130 petitions—which it does—any sane agency would immediately update its rules to create that process.”
Follow Us:
Facebook: Codias Law
X: Codias Law
Email: Join our Newsletter