Wloch v. Lambrecht et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Regina M. Rodriguez
Civil Action No. 23-cv-02976-RMR-MEH
MONIKA WLOCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANGELICA ALFONSO-ROYALS, in her official capacity as Acting Director of the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services;
ANDREW LAMBRECHT, USCIS Field Office Director, Colorado;
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; and
PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as U.S. Attorney General,
Defendants.
ORDER
This case concerns Plaintiff Monika Wloch’s (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Wloch”) Petition for
Relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) challenging the denial of her Form N-400 Application for
Naturalization. ECF No. 1.
Ms. Wloch applied for naturalization on September 25, 2020. After Plaintiff initiated
suit on February 28, 2022 requesting a hearing on her application, the Honorable Judge
Nina Wang granted the government’s motion to remand so that U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (“USCIS”) could make an initial determination. See Wloch v.
Jaddou, No. 22-CV-00495-NYW, 2022 WL 16640782, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2022).
USCIS denied Plaintiff’s application on February 10, 2023, concluding that Plaintiff had
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 21

2
not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence because her marriage to Curt
Spencer (“Mr. Spencer”) was fraudulent. Plaintiff requested and was provided a hearing
by USCIS on her denied naturalization. On July 12, 2023, USCIS again denied Plaintiff’s
naturalization application.
Plaintiff filed the present action on November 9, 2023. The Court held an
evidentiary hearing on July 21, 2025, during which the Court heard testimony from Ms.
Monica Wloch, Mr. Curt Spencer, Ms. Anna Spencer,1 and the Immigration Officer, Adrian
Lopez. Additionally, the parties filed Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
ECF Nos. 46 and 47. For the reasons stated below, the Court respectfully DENIES
Plaintiff’s Petition.
I. 	FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact:
A. 	Ms. Wloch’s Background and Entry into the United States
1. 	Ms. Wloch was born in Poland and is a native citizen of Poland. Stip. Fact #2, ECF
No. 42 at 1.
2. 	She first came to the United States in 2003 on a short-term visa. Hr’g Tr. 59:22–
60:2 (Wloch).
3. 	In the summer of 2004, Ms. Wloch returned to the United States on another J-1
visa2 which expired on September 29, 2004. Hr’g Tr. 59:18–22, 60:5–7 (Wloch).
1 Ms. Anna Spencer is Mr. Spencer’s first wife, who is also a native of Poland. For ease and clarity, the
Court may refer to Anna Spencer as “Anna.”
2 A J-1 visa is a U.S. non-immigrant visa for individuals participating in approved cultural and educational
professional development programs.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 21

3
This time, when her visa expired, Ms. Wloch remained in the United States and
moved to Winter Park, Colorado. Hr’g Tr. 60:8–9; 74:14-16 (Wloch).
B. 	Mr. Spencer’s Background and Relationship with Anna Spencer
4. 	Mr. Spencer was born in the United States and is a U.S. citizen. Stip. Fact #1, ECF
No. 42.
5. 	Mr. Spencer met Anna Spencer (“Anna”), who is also from Poland, in 2000 during
her stay in the United States on a J-1 visa. Hr’g Tr. 143:8–12; 144:2–6 (A.
Spencer).
6. 	Mr. Spencer and Anna married in 2003. Hr’g Tr. 144:20–21 (A. Spencer).
7. 	Anna obtained permanent residence status in the United States based on her
marriage to Mr. Spencer. Hr’g Tr. 117:15–20 (C. Spencer); 146:20–147:3 (A.
Spencer). Eventually, in 2007, she became a naturalized U.S. citizen. Hr’g Tr.
117:15–20 (C. Spencer); 147:4–8 (A. Spencer).
8. 	Anna became a partner in Mr. Spencer’s taxi business in 2009. Hr’g Tr. 119:12–18
(C. Spencer).
9. 	Ms. Spencer testified that by Spring 2011, while she was still married to Mr.
Spencer, Mr. Spencer had become romantically involved with Ms. Wloch. Hr’g Tr.
170:19–171:7 (A. Spencer). Mr. Spencer and Anna were legally divorced in
October 2011. Hr’g Tr. 74:24–75:3 (Wloch); 144:22–23 (A. Spencer); Ex. 18 at 7
(Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) Statement of Findings
(SOF)).
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 21

4
10. Mr. Spencer did not tell his family that he and Anna had divorced. Hr’g Tr. 120:22–
121:3 (C. Spencer). After the divorce, Mr. Spencer and Anna remained business
partners in their taxi business in Winter Park. Hr’g Tr. 80:6–10 (Wloch); 149:15–19
(A. Spencer).
11. Anna remarried in early February 2012. Hr’g Tr. 145:16–18, 146:13–16 (A.
Spencer). Her second marriage was to Tomasz Papka, who is also from Poland
and lived in the Winter Park area in the mid-2000s. Hr’g Tr. 145:19–20 (A.
Spencer).
C. 	Ms. Wloch’s Relationship with Mr. Spencer
12. Ms. Wloch met Mr. Spencer in 2005 in Winter Park. Hr’g Tr. 25:9–13 (Wloch).
13. During this time period, Ms. Wloch, Mr. Spencer, Anna, and Mr. Papka all lived in
the Winter Park area and knew one another. Hr’g Tr. 72:7–73:4 (Wloch); 129:8–10
(C. Spencer); 147:12–148:3 (A. Spencer); see also Hr’g Ex. 26 (photograph of Ms.
Wloch, Ms. Spencer, and Mr. Papka).
14. On January 17, 2012, Ms. Wloch and Mr. Spencer married at the Denver
courthouse. There were no attendees at their wedding, and they did not celebrate
their wedding with any of their friends. Hr’g Tr. 59:1-4; 77:23-79:4 (Wloch).
D. 	Ms. Wloch’s Immigration Filings and Fabricated Cohabitation Evidence
15. In May 2012, with Mr. Spencer’s help, Ms. Wloch sought conditional permanent
resident status from USCIS. Hr’g Tr. 61:8–10 (Wloch).
16. On May 10, 2012, Mr. Spencer filed a Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) with
USCIS on Ms. Wloch’s behalf. Hr’g Ex. 1. The Form I-130 was accompanied by
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 21

5
supporting documentation intended to substantiate the validity of Ms. Wloch’s and
Mr. Spencer’s relationship. Hr’g Tr. 63:2–4, 13–16 (Wloch). Ms. Wloch and Mr.
Spencer compiled the supporting documentation for the Form I-130 together. Hr’g
Tr. 63:5–12 (Wloch).
17. To demonstrate that they resided together from April 2011 to April 2012, Ms. Wloch
and Mr. Spencer submitted a fabricated lease for 74860 Highway 40, Grand
County, Colorado. Hr’g Tr. 64:16–65:7 (Wloch); see also Hr’g Ex. 11. Both later
admitted that 74860 Highway 40 was not a residential address but the office of Mr.
Spencer’s and Anna’s taxi business. Hr’g Tr. 65:8–19 (Wloch). Ms. Wloch did not
reside at that address during the period claimed. Hr’g Tr. 65:10–12 (Wloch). No
other documentation was submitted to USCIS to substantiate that Ms. Wloch and
Mr. Spencer lived together between April 2011 and April 2012. Hr’g Tr. 66:21–24
(Wloch). Additionally, on May 10, 2012, Ms. Wloch filed a Form I-485 (Application
to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) with USCIS, accompanied by
a Form G-325A. Hr’g Ex. 2, Hr’g Ex. 3. On the Form G-325A, Ms. Wloch falsely
stated that she resided at 72860 U.S. Highway 40 from April 2011 through March
2012. Hr’g Ex. 3 at 1. Although the address listed on the Form G-325A differs
slightly from the address on the fabricated lease, Ms. Wloch admitted that she
intended the Form G-325A to refer to the same location–Mr. Spencer’s business
address. Hr’g Tr. 68:7–9 (Wloch).
18. Ms. Wloch testified that from April 2011 through April 2012, she lived with Mr.
Spencer in a cabin near Fraser, Colorado. Hr’g Tr. 68:24–69:2 (Wloch). They did
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 21

6
not have a lease for the cabin because it was a month-to-month rental through a
friend. Hr’g Ex. 7 ¶¶ 13–14.
19. In an affidavit submitted to USCIS, Ms. Wloch stated that she submitted the false
lease because she was ashamed of living with a married man and wanted to keep
the relationship private until Mr. Spencer’s divorce was finalized. Hr’g Ex. 7 ¶ 14.
E. 	Ms. Wloch’s Early Marriage to Mr. Spencer and His Continued Relationship
with Anna
20. In April 2012, four months after she and Mr. Spencer married, Ms. Wloch moved
to Denver. Hr’g Tr. 79:10–15 (Wloch). After Ms. Wloch moved to Denver, Mr.
Spencer continued to run his taxi business in Winter Park along with Anna. Hr’g
Tr. 80:3–7 (Wloch).
21. In May 2012, Mr. Spencer and Anna traveled to Thailand, where they stayed for
two weeks, sharing a hotel room. Hr’g Tr. 81:1–9 (Wloch); 112:16–23, 129:17–20
(C. Spencer); 157:18–20 (A. Spencer); Hr’g Ex. 7 at 3–4 ¶ 33 (affidavit). According
to Mr. Spencer, the purpose of the trip was to acquire scooters for his and Anna’s
business. However, Mr. Spencer and Anna also did some sightseeing. Hr’g Tr.
130:14–16 (C. Spencer). Mr. Spencer provided inconsistent testimony about
whether he told Ms. Wloch about his trip to Thailand with Anna. At one point, he
testified that he did not tell her about the trip. Hr’g Tr. 129:21-23 (C. Spencer).
Later, he testified that he did tell her and described it as a business trip. Hr’g Tr.
130:1–13 (C. Spencer). In their affidavit, Mr. Spencer again stated that he did not
tell Ms. Wloch about the Thailand trip and instead told her he was “going to the
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 21

7
mountains.” Ex. 7¶ 33. Ms. Wloch testified that she did not know that Mr. Spencer
traveled with Anna to Thailand. Hr’g Tr. 81:14–22 (Wloch).
22. On August 2, 2012, USCIS approved Ms. Wloch’s Form I-485 and Mr. Spencer’s
Form I-130, and Ms. Wloch received conditional permanent residency status. Hr’g
Ex. 1; Hr’g Ex. 2. After receiving conditional status, Ms. Wloch traveled to Poland
in October 2012. Hr’g Tr. 61:8–62:1 (Wloch); Ex. 18 at 8 (FDNS SOF). Mr. Spencer
did not go to Poland with her. Hr’g Tr. 62:2–3 (Wloch). Ms. Wloch visited Poland
twice again without Mr. Spencer. Hr’g Tr. 62:4–11 (Wloch); Hr’g Ex. 18 at 8–9. Mr.
Spencer never met Ms. Wloch’s family in Poland. Hr’g Tr. 62:12–19 (Wloch) Ms.
Wloch likewise was never formally introduced to Mr. Spencer’s parents because
their marriage was kept a secret from Mr. Spencer’s family. Hr’g. Tr. 103:10–
104:14.
23. In late 2012 or early 2013, Mr. Spencer conceived a child with Anna during his
marriage to Ms. Wloch. Hr’g Tr. 130:19–131:1 (C. Spencer).
24. In April 2013, Mr. Spencer applied to renew his passport and listed Anna as his
emergency contact and her Lakewood address as his own. Hr’g Tr. 136:24–138:1
(C. Spencer); Ex. 16 at 3–4.
25. Mr. Spencer and Anna’s son was born in October 2013. Hr’g Tr. 160:12-19 (A.
Spencer). Mr. Spencer visited him approximately twice a week at Anna’s home in
Lakewood. Hr’g Tr. 131:2-4 (C. Spencer). Mr. Spencer said that he stayed
overnight on “a couple” of these occasions. Hr’g Tr. 131:2–6 (C. Spencer).
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 21

8
26. When interviewed by Immigration Officer Adrian Lopez by phone, Mr. Spencer
denied having a child with Anna during his marriage to Ms. Wloch. Hr’g Ex. 18 at
5.
F. 	Removal of Conditions
27. On June 18, 2014, Plaintiff submitted Form I-751 (Petition to Remove Conditions)
to USCIS, jointly with Mr. Spencer, to remove the conditions on her legal
permanent residency status. Hr’g Ex. 4. In her Petition, Plaintiff attested that she
was in a legitimate marriage with Mr. Spencer and that they continued to reside
together. To demonstrate that they lived together, Plaintiff submitted a joint health
insurance policy, Hr’g Ex. 40, utility bills for the address of record, Hr’g Exs. 33,
34, bank statements, Hr’g Ex. 35, a joint auto loan, Hr’g Ex. 40, an individual tax
return from 2013 with the address of record, Hr’g Ex. 37, and a lease for the
address of record, Hr’g Ex. 36.
28. They did not list Mr. Spencer’s son on the Form I-751, despite the form’s instruction
to disclose all children. Tr. 134:12–21 (C. Spencer); Ex. 4 at 3–4.
29. On August 1, 2014, USCIS approved the Form I-751, removing the conditions on
Ms. Wloch’s permanent resident status. Ex. 4.
30. In August 2014, Mr. Spencer purchased a motorcycle and listed Anna’s Lakewood
address as his own. Tr. 134:22–136:6 (C. Spencer); Ex. 15 at 5.
31. On September 23, 2014, Anna and Mr. Papka jointly filed a Form I-751 (Petition to
Remove Conditions). Ex. 18 at 9. Similarly, they did not list Anna’s and Mr.
Spencer’s son. Ex. 18 at 12.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 8 of 21

9
32. In October 2014, when their son was about a year old, Mr. Spencer and Anna
traveled to Florida to introduce their son to Mr. Spencer’s mother. Tr. 131:7–12 (C.
Spencer); 161:7–16 (A. Spencer).
33. On April 21, 2015, USCIS approved Anna’s and Mr. Papka’s Form I-751, removing
the conditions on Mr. Papka’s permanent resident status. Ex. 18 at 9.
34. In May 2015, during his marriage to Ms. Wloch, Mr. Spencer and Anna traveled to
Poland with their son to introduce him to Anna’s family. Hr’g Tr. 131:13-19 (C.
Spencer). Ms. Spencer never travelled to Poland with Mr. Papka. Tr. 155:18–156:3
(A. Spencer).
35. Ms. Wloch and Mr. Spencer filed for divorce on August 10, 2015. On November
13, 2015, Ms. Wloch and Mr. Spencer were divorced. Hr’g Ex. 18 at 10. In 2015,
before their divorce, Mr. Spencer was living with Anna at Anna’s home in
Lakewood. Tr. 166:2–4 (A. Spencer).
36. Anna and Mr. Papka divorced on December 31, 2015. Hr’g Tr. 146:17–19; Hr’g Ex.
18 at 10. Following the divorce, Mr. Spencer and Anna remarried and lived together
at the Lakewood residence until their second divorce in July 2020. Tr. 121:13–15
(C. Spencer). Mr. Spencer told his family about their 2020 divorce. Tr. 122:17–19
(C. Spencer).
37. After her divorce from Mr. Spencer, Ms. Wloch eventually remarried. Tr. 62:14–15
(Wloch). Unlike Mr. Spencer, Ms. Wloch’s second husband has traveled to Poland
with her and has met her father. Tr. 62:16–19 (Wloch).
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 9 of 21

10
38. Ms. Wloch has only eight photographs of her and Mr. Spencer together. Tr. 93:5–
21 (Wloch). One of these photographs shows Ms. Wloch and Mr. Spencer in the
same place as a photograph of Anna and Mr. Papka. Ex. 25; Ex. 28.
39. Ms. Wloch has no emails, text messages, or social media posts about Mr. Spencer.
Tr. 94:11–18 (Wloch).
G. 	Naturalization Application and USCIS Fraud Investigation
40. On September 25, 2020, Ms. Wloch applied for naturalization. Hr’g Ex. 5. Her
application was referred to Immigration Officer Lopez for fraud investigation. Hr’g
Tr. 176:23–177:3 (Lopez).
41. On October 28, 2022, USCIS sent Ms. Wloch a Notice of Intent to Deny her Form
N-400 (Application for Naturalization) on the grounds that Plaintiff’s marriage to Mr.
Spencer was fraudulent. Hr’g Ex. 6.
42. USCIS found that the lease documents Plaintiff submitted to demonstrate that she
and Mr. Spencer resided together during their marriage were fabricated and that
they did not reside together during their marriage. Id. When USCIS visited Mr.
Spencer’s current residence, his mother stated he had been married only once, to
Anna, indicating that she was unaware of her son’s marriage to Ms. Wloch. Id.
43. USCIS found that Mr. Spencer consistently listed Anna’s Lakewood address as his
own: on his 2013 passport application and on vehicle registrations in 2014 and
2015. Id.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 10 of 21

11
44. When USCIS contacted Mr. Spencer by phone on January 7, 2022, he confirmed
that he maintained a residential address with Anna during his marriage to Ms.
Wloch. Hr’g Ex. 18 at 5.
45. USCIS determined that Mr. Spencer did not reside with Plaintiff during their
purported marriage but instead with Anna. Hr’g Ex. 6 at 3.
46. USCIS also concluded that Mr. Spencer’s relationship with his ex-wife, Anna, never
ended during his marriage to Plaintiff. Id. First, USCIS pointed to the fact that Mr.
Spencer fathered a child with Anna in 2013, during his marriage to Plaintiff. Id.
USCIS also noted that there appears to have been a concerted effort to omit that
child from the subsequent Form I-751 jointly filed in 2014. Id. The child was also
not disclosed during Plaintiff’s N-400 interview or included as a dependent on the
2013 tax returns Plaintiff filed jointly with Mr. Spencer. Id. Second, USCIS pointed
to travel records showing that Mr. Spencer and Anna traveled internationally
together on multiple occasions during his purported marriage to Plaintiff, whereas
Mr. Spencer never traveled abroad with Plaintiff, even though Plaintiff traveled
several times internationally during the marriage without him. Id.
47. Based on this evidence that Plaintiff’s marriage to Mr. Spencer was fraudulent,
USCIS determined that Plaintiff’s permanent residency was not lawfully obtained.
Id. at 4.
48. In response, Plaintiff and Mr. Spencer jointly submitted an affidavit. Hr’g Ex. 7. The
affidavit confirmed that Mr. Spencer concealed their marriage from his family,
continued using Anna’s address, and submitted a falsified lease for the 74860
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 11 of 21

12
Highway 	40 	address. They 	also 	submitted 	letters 	from 	Cornerstone 	Urban
Apartment Living indicating that they did live together at 950 Lafayette Street #305
from April 2012 to July 2015. Hr’g Ex. 36.
49. USCIS denied Plaintiff’s Application for Naturalization on February 10, 2023. Hr’g
Ex. 8.
50. Plaintiff requested and was provided an administrative hearing challenging the
denial. On July 12, 2023, USCIS again denied Ms. Wloch’s application for
citizenship. Hr’g Ex. 10.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Congress has directed courts to review applications for naturalization de novo. 8
U.S.C. § 1421(c). Accordingly, the Court must make its “own findings of fact and
conclusions of law.” Id. As the Tenth Circuit has noted, this “grant of authority is unusual
in its scope—rarely does a district court review an agency decision de novo and make its
own findings of fact.” Nagahi v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 219 F.3d 1166, 1169 (10th
Cir. 2000). Thus, in reviewing an application for naturalization, “the Court does not defer
to any of the Defendant’s factual findings or conclusions of law.” Giger v. USCIS, 635 F.
Supp. 3d 1136, 1138 (D. Colo. 2022).
However, a naturalization applicant bears the burden of showing her eligibility and
compliance with all naturalization requirements. Berenyi v. Dist. Dir., INS, 385 U.S. 630,
637 (1967). “There must be strict compliance with all the congressionally imposed
prerequisites to the acquisition of citizenship.” Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490,
506 (1981). Therefore, any “doubts about eligibility should be resolved in favor of the
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 12 of 21

13
United States and against the claimant.” Berenyi, 385 U.S. at 637 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
To qualify for naturalization, an applicant must show that she: (1) has “been lawfully
admitted for permanent residence,” has resided continuously in the United States for at
least five years immediately preceding the application for naturalization, has been
physically present in the United States for at least half of those five years, and has resided
within the state of application for at least three months; (2) “has resided continuously
within the United States from the date of application up to the time of admission to
citizenship”; and (3) during all of these periods, “has been and still is a person of good
moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and
well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a).
“No person shall be naturalized unless [she] has been lawfully admitted to the United
States for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1429.
The first requirement—whether Plaintiff was lawfully admitted for permanent
residence—is the central issue in this case.3 A noncitizen may obtain permanent
residence through marriage to a U.S. citizen, but only if she proves by a preponderance
of the evidence that the marriage was entered into in good faith and not for the purpose
of procuring immigration status. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1154(c), 1186a(b)(1)(A)(i), (d)(1)(A)(i)(III).
Simultaneously, the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) prohibits any individual from
“knowingly entering into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the
3 Defendants also contest that Plaintiff satisfies the “good moral character” requirement. However, their
position rests solely on their assertion that Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the nature of her marriage to Mr.
Spencer is not truthful.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 13 of 21

14
immigration laws.” Id. § 1325(c). Such marriages are commonly referred to as “sham
marriages” as opposed to “bona fide marriages.” Olumuyia v. USCIS, No. 1:22-cv-02530-
NYW, 2023 WL 7686297, at *2 (D. Colo. Nov 15, 2023).
The key inquiry in determining whether a couple entered into a sham marriage is
whether they “intended to establish a life together at the time they were married.”
Vladimirov v. Lynch, 805 F.3d 955, 961 (10th Cir. 2015). Conduct after the marriage is
relevant to determining that intent. Akopyan v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-01724-RBJ, 2018 WL
6249885, at *5 (D. Colo. Nov. 29, 2018), aff'd sub nom. Akopyan v. Barr, 786 F. App'x 829
(10th Cir. 2019).
In assessing a finding of marriage fraud, courts apply a “substantial and probative
evidence” standard of review. Id. Evidence meets this threshold when it is more than
probably true that the marriage was fraudulent. Matter of P. Singh, 27 I. & N. Dec. 598,
607 (BIA 2019). A mere reasonable inference of fraud is insufficient. Matter of Tawfik, 20
I. & N. Dec. 166, 167–68 (BIA 1990). Nevertheless, “even if particular facts ‘may not [be]
sufficient individually to establish a finding of fraud,’ those same facts, when taken
together, may provide ‘ample support’ for an agency to infer a fraudulent marriage.” Atieh
v. Riordan, 797 F.3d 135, 140 n.4 (1st Cir. 2015).
“[M]aterials which may demonstrate that a marriage is bona fide include: (1)
documentation showing joint ownership of property; (2) a lease showing joint tenancy of
a common residence; (3) evidence of commingling of financial resources; (4) birth
certificates of children born to the petitioner and beneficiary; (5) affidavits of third parties
having knowledge of the bona fides of the marital relationship; and (6) any other
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 14 of 21

15
documentation which is relevant to establish that the marriage was not entered into in
order to evade the immigration laws of the United States.” Doe v. Att'y Gen. of U.S., 383
F. App'x 214, 218–19 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 204(a)(1)(i)(B)). “Significant
inconsistencies coupled with minimal documentary evidence of a shared life may support
a conclusion” that the petitioner has failed to carry her burden. Awan v. Mather, No. 2:23-
cv-00258-DBB-DAO, 2023 WL 7002617, at *5 (D. Utah Oct. 24, 2023) (citing 8 C.F.R. §
204(a)(1)(i)(B)(5)).
III. 	ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has not carried her burden to demonstrate that her marriage to Mr. Spencer
was bona fide. This Court held a hearing where it heard testimony and received exhibits.
The Court has reviewed the agency decision de novo and made its own findings of fact.
The record contains substantial and probative evidence that the marriage was not entered
into with the intent to establish a life together.
A. 	Plaintiff knowingly submitted fabricated leases to demonstrate cohabitation.
First, the evidence strongly indicates that Plaintiff knowingly submitted fabricated
leases 	to 	demonstrate 	cohabitation with Mr. 	Spencer. As 	the BIA has 	explained,
“[e]vidence that the parties knowingly and deliberately attempted to mislead or deceive
immigration officials regarding their cohabitation, joint finances, or other aspects of the
marriage strongly indicate fraud.” Matter of P. Singh, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 609.
Plaintiff and Mr. Spencer expressly admitted in their joint affidavit that the lease
they submitted for the claimed joint residence at 74860 Highway 40, Grand County,
Colorado, for the period of April 1, 2011, to April 1, 2012, was fabricated. They concede
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 15 of 21

16
that no lease existed for that residence and that they altered Mr. Spencer’s business lease
to demonstrate that they resided together during this period. Hr’g Ex. 7 ¶ 14.
USCIS also found inconsistencies with the other lease Plaintiff submitted for 950
Lafayette Street, Unit #305, Denver, CO 80208, for the period from April 27, 2012, to April
26, 2013. During their investigation, USCIS contacted the property manager, Cornerstone
Urban Apartment Living (“Cornerstone”). Jim Lorenzen, the president and founder of the
company whose name appears on the lease, stated that the document is not the one his
company uses and that his signature was forged. The subsequent letters Plaintiff
submitted from a different Cornerstone employee do not authenticate the lease and
contain no documentary evidence establishing that the couple resided there during this
period. Hr’g Ex. 18 at 6. The agency thus concluded that Plaintiff relied on at least two
fraudulent leases to substantiate the marriage, and this Court agrees. Such deliberate
misrepresentations weigh heavily against a finding that the marriage was genuine at
inception.
B. 	Government records demonstrate that Mr. Spencer consistently resided with
Anna Spencer, not Plaintiff, throughout the marriage.
Independent government records further undermine Plaintiff’s claim of a shared
life. Multiple documents show that Mr. Spencer consistently represented his residence as
71 Lamar Street–Anna Spencer’s address–throughout his alleged marriage to Plaintiff.
In his 2013 passport application, Mr. Spencer listed the Lamar Street address and
identified Anna as his emergency contact. He used that same address again in registering
two vehicles in 2014 and 2015. His divorce records likewise reflect that his residence at
the time of the dissolution of his marriage to Plaintiff was the Lamar Street address with
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 16 of 21

17
Anna. When confronted with these contradictions by USCIS, Mr. Spencer merely stated,
“we may have had addresses,” a response that does little to dispel the inference arising
from years of consistent documentation. Taken together, this Court finds these records
strongly suggest that Mr. Spencer resided with Anna, not Ms. Wloch, during the relevant
period.
C. 	Mr. Spencer maintained an ongoing relationship with Anna, undermining
Plaintiff’s claims of a bona fide marriage.
The record also demonstrates that Mr. Spencer maintained an ongoing romantic
relationship with Anna during his marriage to Plaintiff. Notably, he fathered a child with
Anna in 2013, squarely within his marriage to Plaintiff. The child was omitted from the
couple’s jointly filed Form I-751, was not disclosed during Plaintiff’s naturalization
interview, and did not appear on the couple’s 2013 joint tax return. “Evidence that the
parties have other romantic partners, with whom they may have children, is also a
significant consideration, especially when these facts are either not disclosed or are
deliberately concealed.” P. Singh, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 609.
The couple’s travel records further underscore the absence of a bona fide
marriage. Plaintiff traveled to Poland, where her family resides, on three separate
occasions during the marriage. She traveled alone each time, and Mr. Spencer was never
taken to meet her family. Given that Plaintiff made repeated trips to her home country and
yet never introduced her spouse to her family, the evidence strongly suggests a lack of
intent to establish a life together.
In stark contrast, Mr. Spencer traveled internationally with Anna multiple times
during his marriage to Plaintiff. Mr. Spencer traveled internationally with Anna within just
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 17 of 21

18
four months of marrying Plaintiff. Most notably, in 2015, Mr. Spencer traveled with Anna
and their child to Poland to introduce their son to Anna’s family. This trip highlights the
continuing familial commitment between Mr. Spencer and Anna during his marriage to
Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff and Mr. Spencer assert that they were separated by that time,
the record indicates that during the 2015 trip, Mr. Spencer and Anna represented to
Anna’s family that they had never gotten divorced and were still married. This behavior is
irreconcilable with Plaintiff’s claim that her marriage to Mr. Spencer was genuine.
Further, during USCIS’s investigation, when officers asked Mr. Spencer’s mother
how many times her son had been married, she responded, “one time, to Anna.” Plaintiff
and Mr. Spencer attempt to explain this by asserting that he concealed his marriage to
Plaintiff due to his parents’ religious objections to divorce. But the BIA has recognized that
“[s]tatements from family members… indicating they do not know about the marriage…
[is] indicia of fraud.” Matter of P. Singh, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 609. The fact that Mr. Spencer’s
own mother and father were unaware of his marriage to Plaintiff, therefore, weighs heavily
against a finding of their bona fide marriage.
D. 	Plaintiff lacks objective evidence of a shared life, including joint assets or
meaningful documentation of a bona fide marriage.
Other objective evidence of a bona fide marriage is notably absent. Although
Plaintiff purchased two condominiums during the marriage, both were titled solely in her
name. Hr’g Ex. 18 at 9–10. In their joint affidavit, Plaintiff asserts that she bought the
second condominium in June 2015 without Mr. Spencer because they were in the process
of separating. Hr’g Ex. 7 ¶ 30. But Plaintiff purchased the first condominium in October
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 18 of 21

19
2013 during their marriage. Hr’g Ex. 7 ¶ 24. The absence of any jointly held property
further undermines Plaintiff’s claim.
Similarly, Plaintiff produced only eight photographs in response to a request for all
images documenting the marriage. Two appear to have been taken on the same day
because they are wearing the same outfits, and another mirrors the location and posture
of a photograph featuring Anna and her second husband, Tomasz Papka. This photo,
presented at the hearing, was highly suspicious, indicating that both couples went to the
same place on the same day to create photos to support their marriages. At a minimum,
the minimal evidence of shared experiences is inconsistent with a couple intending to
build a life together.
E. 	Wloch’s marriage to Curt Spencer was for the purpose of obtaining
an immigration benefit.
A noncitizen can obtain permanent resident status through marriage to a U.S.
citizen. See Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6, 9 (2024) (summarizing “the pathway to
permanent legal status for a noncitizen spouse of a U.S. citizen”). If the marriage is less
than two years old when the noncitizen seeks permanent resident status, there is a two-
step process, requiring multiple submissions to USCIS. United States v. Islam, 418 F.3d
1125, 1128, 1128 n.2 (10th Cir. 2005) (describing the process).4 A noncitizen may not,
4 Specifically, first, in coordination with their spouse, the noncitizen may apply for conditional permanent
resident status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (permitting applications for adjustment of status); id.
§ 1186a(a)(1), (h)(1) (providing that “an alien spouse” may obtain such status “on a conditional basis”). To
obtain conditional permanent resident status, the noncitizen’s spouse must file a properly supported Form
I–130, Petition for Alien Relative. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1) (requiring an I-130); id. § 204.1(f)–(g)
(specifying contents of the I-130). In addition, the noncitizen must file a Form I-485, Application to
Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, accompanied by a Form G-325A, Biographic
Information. See id. § 245.2(a)(3). Second, within ninety days before the two-year anniversary of
obtaining conditional permanent resident status, the noncitizen and their spouse can file a joint petition to
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 19 of 21

20
however, obtain permanent resident status based on a marriage “entered into for the
purpose of procuring [their] admission as an immigrant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(b)(1)(A)(i),
(d)(1)(A)(i)(III); see also United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 765 (2013) (“Congress
[has] determined that marriages entered into for the purpose of procuring an alien’s
admission to the United States as an immigrant will not qualify the noncitizen for that
status.” (cleaned up and quotation omitted)).
The many parallels between Mr. Spencer’s and Anna’s brief second marriages
cast even more significant doubt on Ms. Wloch’s marriage. Both Mr. Spencer and Anna
remarried within a few months of their divorce. ECF No. 46 ¶¶ 14, 19, 30. Both second
marriages were to people from Poland whom they had known for years from the Winter
Park community, and who had overstayed their short-term visas. Id. ¶ 34. Applications for
conditional permanent resident status closely followed both second marriages. Id. ¶¶ 35,
67. And shortly after those conditions were lifted, Mr. Spencer and Ms. Spencer were
living together, and both second marriages ended. Id. ¶¶ 75, 80, 84–85, 87–88. These
appear to be “coincidences” too clear to be overlooked by this Court. Coupled with the
photographs of the two couples taken in front of the same backdrop submitted to support
their respective marriages, this Court finds it highly likely that the photos were to support
a marriage entered into to obtain admission rather than a bona fide marriage.
remove the conditions, 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(1), (d)(2), using Form I-751, Petition to Remove the
Conditions on Residence, see 8 C.F.R. § 216.4(a)(1). At this step, Congress requires “facts and
information” about the marriage. 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(d)(1).
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 20 of 21

21
V. CONCLUSION
Taken together, the fabricated leases, the documentary evidence showing Mr.
Spencer’s residence with Anna, the concealed child and continued family relationship
between Mr. Spencer and Anna, Plaintiff’s failure to integrate Mr. Spencer into her family
life, the absence of shared assets, and the lack of corroborating evidence demonstrate
that Plaintiff’s marriage to Mr. Spencer was not entered into in good faith but instead
entered into for the purpose of procuring immigration status. Plaintiff has therefore failed
to meet her burden to demonstrate that she was lawfully admitted for permanent
residence as required for naturalization. For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that
Plaintiff’s Petition is respectfully DENIED.
DATED: April 6, 2026
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
REGINA M. RODRIGUEZ
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:23-cv-02976-RMR-CYC Document 48 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 21 of 21