and that it thus erred in relying on that factor in exercising its discretion to deny his application. First, Rendon argues that, because Ramos was already married when he married her, his marriage was void ab initio and had no legal effect. Thus, he reasons, he cannot be found to have entered into a fraudulent marriage if he cannot legally be deemed to have entered into a marriage at all. We are not persuaded. The IJ rejected this argument on the grounds that Rendon could still be deemed to have committed fraud whether his marriage turned out to be legally valid or not (IJ Dec. at 4), and we agree. The legally relevant factor in this case is the fraud, not the validity of the marriage that was the subject of the fraud. Cf. Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 230, 234-35 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Second, Rendon argues that the IJ deprived
recognizing the common enterprise theory of marriage holding husband could not have marriage annulled because wife was pregnant by him at time of marriage recognizing that basis for deportation was aliens misrepresentation about his marriage not the validity of his marriage holding that where the petitioners prior marriage was dissolved after the subsequent marriage the subsequent marriages validity should be analyzed under the law of the place where it was celebrated holding that the law to be applied in determining the validity of  an outofstate marriage is the law of the state in which the marriage occurred