Junio
Junio v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
We grant Pedro Villarama Junio’s petition for review. Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s conclusion that Junio could not establish eligibility for suspension of deportation because he had given false testimony during a naturalization interview, thus precluding the necessary finding of good moral character. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 (f)(6), 1254(a)(1)(1992).
Junio had participated in two marriage ceremonies to the same woman; the first, a civil ceremony prior to his immigration to the United States and, the second, a religious ceremony that occurred approximately two years later. In the naturalization interview, Junio was asked only whether he was married on the latter date. Junio truthfully responded “yes,” but did not volunteer that he had also participated in the earlier marriage ceremony. Although Junio was not entirely forthcoming, his response to the narrow question posed was not “false.” Junio’s case is thus vastly different from that of Bernal v. INS, in which the petitioner falsely stated that he had never been married in either a civil or *722 religious ceremony prior to immigrating to the United States. 154 F.3d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir.1998).