Rosati v. Mayorkas

691 F.Supp.3d 597

Anthony ROSATI, Plaintiff, v. Alejandro MAYORKAS in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security,U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,UR Jaddou in her official capacity as Director of USCIS,USCIS Syracuse Satellite Office Director of USCIS Syracuse Field Office,Matthew Emrich in his official capacity as Associate Director forUSCIS's Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS),Merrick Garland in his official capacity as U.S. Attorney General,and U.S. Department of Justice, Defendants.

6:22-cv-999

United States District Court, N.D. New York

Signed September 7, 2023

JULIE GOLDBERG, ESQ., GOLDBERG & ASSOCIATES, Attorneys for Plaintiff, 5586 Broadway, Third Floor, Bronx, NY 10463.

JULIAN KURZ, ESQ., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Attorneys for Defendants, Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 868, Washington, DC 20044.

DECISION and ORDER

DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 22, 2022, Anthony Rosati ("Rosati" or "plaintiff") filed this action challenging the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services' ("USCIS" or the "agency") decision denying his I-130 Petition for Alien Relative ("I-130 petition" or "petition") filed on behalf of his spouse, Cindy Rosati ("Cindy"). Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff's complaint seeks judicial review of the decision under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Id.

On January 18, 2023, defendants¹ moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 56. Dkt. No. 15. On March 31, 2023, Rosati cross-moved for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 20. On June 30, 2023, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment and moved for discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d). Dkt. No. 26. On July 20, 2023, defendants moved to strike plaintiff's response to his motion for discovery. Dkt. No. 29. The motions have been fully briefed and will be considered on the basis of the submissions without oral argument.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background

The Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") delegates the adjudication and investigation of immigration benefit petitions to the United States Department of Homeland Security and USCIS. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103(a), 1154. Pursuant to the INA, a United States citizen may seek permanent resident status on behalf of an alien spouse. 8 U.S.C. § 1154; 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1), (b). In order to do so, the United States citizen (the "petitioner") must file a I-130 petition on behalf of the alien spouse (the "beneficiary"). 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 1154; 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1). Once an I-130 petition has been filed, USCIS is directed to conduct "an investigation of the facts in each case." 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b). If USCIS determines that "the facts stated in the petition are true and that the alien on behalf of whom the petition is made is an immediate relative," the agency shall approve the petition. Id.

"One reason USCIS may deny an I-130 petition is if it finds that the beneficiary has engaged in marriage fraud." Mamedov v. Barr, 2021 WL 781743, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2021). Pursuant to the marriage-fraud bar, an I-130 petition must be denied if there is "substantial and probative evidence" that: (1) the beneficiary "has previously been accorded, or has sought to be accorded," immediate relative status based on a marriage "entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws;" or (2) the beneficiary "has attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws." 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c); see also Bourisquot v. Holder, 569 F. App'x 35, 35-36 (2d Cir. 2014) (summary order). The petitioner bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her marriage was bona fide at its inception. Berrios v. Holder, 502 F. App'x 100, 101 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) (citation omitted).

B. Factual Background²

On July 16, 2018, Rosati filed an I-130 petition on behalf of his spouse, Cindy, seeking to classify her as the spouse of a United States citizen. Certified Administrative Record ("AR"), Dkt. No. 9 at 111-22.³

On June 26, 2019, Rosati and Cindy appeared before USCIS for an interview in connection with plaintiff's I-130 petition at the agency's Syracuse Field Support Office. AR at 172-75. On November 14, 2019, the agency conducted field site visits to plaintiff and Cindy's residences. Id. at 181-85.

On November 25, 2019, USCIS issued Rosati a Notice of Intent to Deny ("NOID"). AR at 18-21. The NOID outlined the information considered by the agency in support of its intended denial of plaintiff's I-130 petition and provided plaintiff with an opportunity to respond to the NOID. Id. On December 26, 2019, plaintiff responded to the NOID and provided additional documentation in support of his petition. Id. at 22-27, 36-37.

On January 21, 2020, USCIS issued a decision denying Rosati's I-130 petition. AR at 6-13. The decision outlined the evidence in support of the agency's finding that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a bona fide marriage. Id. The decision also explained why the additional information submitted by plaintiff in response to the NOID failed to overcome the evidence of marriage fraud. Id.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

"Under the APA, a 'person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action . . . is entitled to judicial review thereof.' " Hadwan v. United States Dep't of State, 2021 WL 4037714, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2021) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 702(2)(A)). Specifically, the APA authorizes a district court to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action" that is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." Almakalani v. McAleenan, 527 F. Supp. 3d 205, 219 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)).

"When a party challenges agency action under the APA, the district court acts as an 'appellate tribunal' and the case on review presents 'a question of law.' " Saleh v. Blinken, 596 F. Supp. 3d 405, 413 (E.D.N.Y. 2022) (citations omitted). "Summary judgment is generally an appropriate procedural vehicle to resolve such a case, but the usual summary judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not apply." Id. (cleaned up). Instead, pursuant to the "record rule," the district court decides the legal issue of whether the agency's action was arbitrary and capricious by reviewing the administrative record compiled by the agency when it made its decision. Id. (citations omitted); see also Ali v. Pompeo, 2018 WL 2058152, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 2, 2018).

The scope of review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is narrow and "courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the agency." Karpova v. Snow, 497 F.3d 262, 267 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 33, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983)). Agency action may be overturned as arbitrary and capricious only if:

the agency "has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise."

Id. at 268 (citation omitted). In other words, agency action will be upheld "so long as the agency examines the relevant data and has set out a satisfactory explanation, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made." Id.

IV. DISCUSSION

There are four motions pending: (1) defendants' motion for summary judgment; (2) Rosati's cross-motion for summary judgment; (3) plaintiff's motion for discovery; and (4) defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's response to his motion for discovery. See Dkt. Nos. 15, 20, 26, 29.

A. Motion for Discovery

As an initial matter, Rosati has moved for limited discovery under Rule 56(d). See Pl.'s Opp'n, Dkt. No. 26-1. Plaintiff maintains that he is unable to respond to defendants' motion for summary judgment due to material facts being missing from the administrative record. See id. at 6-14. For the following reasons, neither administrative law principles nor Rule 56(d) warrant supplementation of the record.

1. APA Discovery

"[I]n an APA case, a court should only consider materials outside the certified administrative record in special circumstances." Blinken, 596 F. Supp. 3d at 413. "Requests by a party to put materials before the Court that are outside the administrative record filed by the agency fall into two distinct categories." Comprehensive Cmty. Dev. Corp. v. Sebelius, 890 F. Supp. 2d 305, 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citation omitted). First, a party may seek extra-record evidence, i.e., evidence that was not necessarily considered by the agency, "where 'there has been a strong showing in support of a claim of bad faith or improper behavior on the part of the agency decision-maker or where the absence of formal administrative findings makes such investigation necessary in order to determine the reasons for the agency's choice.' " Id. (quoting Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7, 14 (2d Cir. 1997)). Second, "a party may seek to supplement the administrative record by showing 'that materials exist that were actually considered by the agency decision-makers but are not in the record as filed.' " Blinken, 596 F. Supp. 3d at 413 (citations omitted). "[I]n either case, the Court must be mindful that supplementation of the administrative record is the exception, not the rule." Ali, 2018 WL 2058152, at *4 (cleaned up).

"When permitted, 'discovery should not transform the litigation into one involving all the liberal discovery available under the Federal Rules.' " Hadwan, 2021 WL 4037714, at *4 (quoting Ali, 2018 WL 2058152, at *4). "Rather, the Court must permit only that discovery necessary to effectuate...