Mamedov v. Barr

ZAUR MAMEDOV and BAKHRIYA AGAYEVA, Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General et al., Defendants.

20-CV-1063 (ARR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 1, 2021

OPINION & ORDER

ROSS, United States District Judge:

The government moves to dismiss this Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") challenge to the denial of an I-130 petition for failure to state a claim. Gov't's Mot. Dismiss 8-15 ("Gov't's Mot."), ECF No. 12-1. Though styled only as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6), the government's motion also raises a jurisdictional argument that plaintiffs' claims are moot, which I address under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Plaintiffs Zaur Mamedov and Bakhriya Agayeva oppose, arguing that their claims are not moot and that they have plausibly pleaded that the agency's denial was arbitrary and capricious and violated their procedural due process rights. Pls.' Opp'n 5-10, ECF No. 15. For the following reasons, I deny the government's motion as to plaintiffs' arbitrary-and-capricious claim and grant the government's motion as to plaintiffs' constitutional claims.

LEGAL BACKGROUND

Certain "immediate relatives" of U.S. citizens, including spouses, qualify for immigrant visas to the United States by virtue of their family relationships. 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b). These visas are attractive to applicants because no numerical limitations constrain the total number of visas given to these types of relatives. Id. An I-130 petition "is the first step in helping an eligible [immediate] relative apply to immigrate to the United States and get [a] Green Card." I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. ("USCIS"), https://www.uscis.gov/i-130 (last updated Feb. 19, 2021) ("USCIS I-130 Webpage").¹ A U.S. citizen submits an I-130 petition to USCIS on behalf of a relative, who is considered the beneficiary. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(d). The agency then assesses whether the beneficiary qualifies as an "immediate relative" under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1). If so, USCIS "shall . . . approve the petition." 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b). "USCIS's approval of a petition does not automatically cause the agency to issue a visa or grant permanent lawful resident status to the beneficiary; instead, the beneficiary receives a place in line to wait for a visa." Li v. Renaud, 654 F.3d 376, 378 (2d Cir. 2011); see also USCIS I-130 Webpage ("The filing or approval of [an I-130] petition does not give [the beneficiary] any immigration status or benefit."). The decision of whether to grant or deny an immigrant visa occurs later, and the process is different depending on the beneficiary's preexisting immigration status. See USCIS I-130 Webpage.

If USCIS denies an I-130 petition, the applicant may appeal this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") within the Department of Justice. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(1)(ii), 1003.1(a)(1), 1003.1(b)(5). The BIA reviews USCIS's decision de novo. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iii).

One reason USCIS may deny an I-130 petition is if it finds that the beneficiary has engaged in marriage fraud. INA § 204(c) provides that:

no petition shall be approved if (1) the alien has previously been accorded, or has sought to be accorded, an immediate relative or preference status asthe spouse of a citizen of the United States or the spouse of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, by reason of a marriage determined by the Attorney General to have been entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws, or (2) the Attorney General has determined that the alien has attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.

8 U.S.C. § 1154(c).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs challenge the denial of an I-130 petition submitted by plaintiff Bakhriya Agayeva on behalf of her husband, plaintiff Zaur Mamedov. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 7, ECF No. 1. USCIS denied Ms. Agayeva's I-130 petition for Mr. Mamedov on October 3, 2013, and the BIA affirmed the denial on May 15, 2015. See BIA Decision 1, Compl. Ex. A. In adjudicating the appeal, the BIA reviewed "the record of proceedings, including the decision of the Director, the May 14, 2013, Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) [Ms. Agayeva's I-130 petition], [Ms. Agayeva]'s response to the NOID, and [Ms. Agayeva]'s contentions on appeal." Id.

The BIA noted that, in denying the petition, USCIS had found that Mr. Mamedov's previous marriage to Karen Anne Joyce "was entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws and, consequently, came within the purview of section 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c)." Id. The BIA recounted that Ms. Joyce had filed an I-130 petition for Mr. Mamedov on July 9, 2003, but on December 18, 2006, she signed a sworn statement that "she entered into the marriage with the beneficiary to 'help him get his green card and become a U.S. citizen,' [and] that he offered to pay her $5000 that she expected to receive 'when everything was approved.'" Id. Ms. Agayeva had argued that a recantation statement Ms. Joyce gave in 2012, along with further "evidence of the bona fides of the marriage," proves that § 204(c) should not bar approval of her I-130 petition for Mr. Mamedov. Id. at 1-2. But the BIA found this evidence was insufficient "to overcome Ms. Joyce's detailed statement madecontemporaneous to the interview on her petition." Id. at 2. The BIA also examined tax returns, a joint business license, and two letters from Mr. Mamedov's friends in reaching this conclusion. Id. at 1-2.

While not mentioned in the complaint or the BIA decision, the government submits that USCIS determined that Mr. Mamedov's marriage to Ms. Joyce was fraudulent in denying Ms. Agayeva's first I-130 petition on Mr. Mamedov's behalf in 2010. See 2010 USCIS Denial 2-3, Price Decl. Ex. B, ECF No. 12-4. Ms. Agayeva appealed that decision but later withdrew the appeal, and the BIA dismissed it on April 23, 2012. See 2010 Appeal Notice, Price Decl. Ex. C, ECF No. 12-5; 2010 Withdrawal, Price Decl. Ex. D, ECF No. 12-6; 2012 Appeal Dismissal, Price Decl. Ex. E, ECF No. 12-7.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on February 26, 2020. See Compl. The government filed the instant motion to dismiss on December 21, 2020. Gov't's Mot. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on January 11, 2021, Pls.' Opp'n, and the government filed its reply on January 15, 2021, Gov't's Reply, ECF No. 16.

LEGAL STANDARD

In reviewing a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), I must "accept[] as true all material [factual] allegations of the complaint" and "draw[] all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff," but I also may consider evidence outside the pleadings submitted by either party. Carter v. HealthPort Techs., LLC, 822 F.3d 47, 56-57 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Lunney v. United States, 319 F.3d 550, 554 (2d Cir. 2003)).

In reviewing a complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), I must "constru[e] [it] liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Bacon v. Phelps, 961 F.3d 533, 540(2d Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). I may consider only those "facts stated on the face of the complaint, in documents appended to the complaint or incorporated in the complaint by reference, and to matters of which judicial notice may be taken." Allen v. WestPoint-Pepperell, Inc., 945 F.2d 40, 44 (2d Cir. 1991). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id.

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiffs' Claims Are Not Moot.

The government argues that plaintiffs' claims are moot because USCIS's 2010 determination that Mr. Mamedov's marriage to Ms. Joyce was fraudulent triggered a permanent bar under INA § 204(c) such that the agency can never grant a subsequent I-130 petition for Mr. Mamedov.² Gov't's Mot. 14-15. "When a case becomes moot, the federal courts lack[] subject matter jurisdiction over the action." Fox v. Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of New York, 42 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 1994) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, courts evaluate mootness on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Doyle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 722 F.3d 78, 80 (2d Cir. 2013). A case is moot when "it is impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party." In re Kurtzman, 194 F.3d 54, 58 (2d Cir. 1999) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Here, plaintiffs seek an order either remanding the I-130 decision to the agency or grantingthe petition. Compl. ¶ 18. In general, I have the power to issue either order. See, e.g., Simko v. BIA, 156 F. Supp. 3d 300, 317 (D. Conn. 2015). USCIS's 2010 determination that Mr. Mamedov's marriage to Ms. Joyce was fraudulent does not change that. The BIA has held that in analyzing whether § 204(c) precludes granting a particular visa petition, USCIS "should not give conclusive effect to determinations made in a prior proceeding, but, rather, should reach [its] own independent conclusion based on the evidence before [it.]." Matter of Pak, 28 I. & N. Dec. 113, 117 (BIA 2020) (quoting Matter of Tawfik, 20 I. & N. Dec. 166, 168 (BIA 1990)). Accordingly, "the approvability of the subsequent visa petition will depend on a determination of whether there is, at present, sufficient evidence, inclusive of evidence relied upon in the determination of the first visa petition, to support the contention that the beneficiary's previous...