Bouarfa v. Mayorkas
| Docket Number | 8:22-cv-224-WFJ-AEP |
| Decision Date | 08 June 2022 |
| Parties | AMINA BOUARFA, Plaintiff, v. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; UR M. JADDOU, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Plaintiff Amina Bouarfa filed an I-130 visa petition on behalf of her husband, Ala'a Hamayel. The United States Citizen and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) initially granted the petition without taking into account a previous finding that Mr. Hamayel had entered into a sham marriage, making him ineligible for a future visa pursuant to § 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c). Once USCIS discovered the error, it revoked Plaintiff Bouarfa's visa petition and explained that it never should have granted the petition in the first place. After an unsuccessful appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, Plaintiff filed the instant case to challenge the revocation.
Before the Court today is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Alejandro N. Mayorkas-the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security- and Ur M. Jaddou-the Director of USCIS Dkt. 8. Defendants argue this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because the revocation was a discretionary agency decision not subject to judicial review. Id. Plaintiff filed a response. Dkt. 11.
After careful review of the record and relevant case law, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted.
Plaintiff Bouarfa is a United States citizen married to Ala'a Hamayel (“Mr. Hamayel”), a citizen of the Palestinian Authority. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 1, 11. Plaintiff Bouarfa and Mr. Hamayel share two children, who are both citizens of the United States. Dkt. 11 at 2.
Mr Hamayel was married twice before. He first married Ms Adriana Munoz in March 2007-days after Ms. Munoz's naturalization ceremony to become a United States citizen. Dkt 1-4 at 4; Dkt. 11 at 2. Ms. Munoz filed a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative0F[1] (“I-130 petition”) seeking a spousal visa for Mr. Hamayel. Dkt. 11 at 2. USCIS conducted interviews with Mr. Hamayel and Ms. Munoz to determine whether their marriage was bona fide. Id. at 2-3. At the end of an interview, Ms. Munoz signed a sworn statement withdrawing her support for the Form I-130. Id. at 3. She stated her marriage to Mr. Hamayel was fraudulent and that she asked him for $5, 000 before filing the visa petition on his behalf. Dkt. 1-4 at 4. Defendants accordingly denied Ms. Munoz's Form I-130 petition and initiated deportation proceedings against Mr. Hamayel. Dkt. 11 at 3.
A week later, Ms. Munoz submitted a second Form I-130 petition on Mr. Hamayel's behalf. Id. Ms. Munoz attempted to retract her previous admission that her marriage with Mr. Hamayel was fraudulent, saying she made those statements while under duress. Id. at 4; Dkt. 1-4 at 4. Nevertheless, Ms. Munoz and Mr. Hamayel divorced soon after, resulting in the denial of Ms. Munoz's second Form I-130 petition. Dkt. 11 at 4.
Just over a year later, in May 2008, Mr. Hamayel married his second wife, Clare Farmer. Id. Like Ms. Munoz, Ms. Farmer submitted a Form I-130 petition on Mr. Hamayel's behalf. Id. But the couple soon began experiencing marital discord, and they divorced. Id. at 4-5. USCIS accordingly denied Ms. Farmer's Form I-130 petition. Id. at 5.
Plaintiff Bouarfa and Mr. Hamayel married in February 2011. Id. About three years later, Plaintiff filed a Form I-130 petition seeking a spousal visa for Mr. Hamayel. Dkt. 1 ¶ 12. Defendant USCIS approved the Form I-130 petition on January 6, 2015. Id. at ¶ 13; Dkt. 8 at 3. However, on March 1, 2017, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke (“NOIR”) its approval of the visa petition. Dkt. 1 ¶ 14; Dkt. 8 at 3. USCIS stated it never should have approved Plaintiff Bouarfa's I-130 petition in the first place because there was substantial and probative evidence that Mr. Hamayel entered his first marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws. Dkt. 1 ¶ 15. USCIS based this determination on Ms. Munoz's sworn statements that her marriage to Mr. Hamayel was fraudulent and that she asked him for $5, 000 to file a Form I-130 petition on his behalf. Id.
Plaintiff timely responded to the NOIR, arguing that her husband's previous marriage to Ms. Munoz was bona fide. Dkt. 11 at 5. She attached documentary evidence to support this argument, including Ms. Munoz's later statements that she was under duress when she said her marriage was fraudulent. Id. at 5-6.
Defendants officially revoked the approval of Plaintiff's Form I-130 petition on June 7, 2017. Dkt. 1 ¶ 17. Defendants concluded that Ms. Munoz's statements about duress were unpersuasive and failed to undermine the probative value of her initial sworn statement that the marriage was fraudulent. Id. Defendants concluded that Mr. Hamayel's marriage to Ms. Munoz was a “sham” and that Plaintiff's Form I-130 petition had been approved in error. Id.
Plaintiff timely appealed the revocation to the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “Board”). Id. ¶ 18. The Board dismissed the appeal on December 1, 2021, pursuant to a written opinion. Id. ¶ 19; Dkt. 1-4. The Board based its decision on Ms. Munoz's statements that the marriage was fraudulent, saying these statements were more persuasive than her later attempt to retract them. Dkt. 1-4 at 4.
Plaintiff filed the instant case seeking judicial review of Defendants' revocation of its prior acceptance of Plaintiff's Form I-130 petition. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff argues this revocation violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, because the administrative record lacked substantial and probative evidence that Mr. Hamayel fraudulently entered his prior marriage with Ms. Munoz to evade immigration laws. Dkt. 1 ¶ 24. Defendants now move to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 8.
A party may bring a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Thompson v. McHugh, 388 Fed.Appx. 870, 872 (11th Cir. 2010). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss may facially or factually challenge a plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. McElmurray v. Consol. Gov't of Augusta-Richmond Cnty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2007). A facial attack requires the court to determine if the plaintiff has sufficiently advanced a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Conversely, a factual attack challenges the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact, regardless of the basis that the plaintiff has alleged in the complaint. Id. When considering a factual attack, the court may consider matters outside the pleadings. Id.
The INA establishes the process through which a United States citizen may bring an alien who is a close relative, such as a spouse, to reside lawfully in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 1154. To do so, the United States citizen must file an I-130 petition on the alien relative's behalf requesting that USCIS formally recognize the relationship and classify the alien as an “immediate relative.” 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1). The petitioner bears the burden of proving the validity of the claimed relationship by a preponderance of the evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.1(f), 204.2(a)(2); Matter of Pazandeh, 19 I. & N. Dec. 884, 887 (BIA 1989).
The INA prohibits USCIS from approving an I-130 petition if the beneficiary has at any time entered a marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws:
[N]o petition shall be approved if (1) the alien has previously been accorded, or has sought to be accorded, an immediate relative or preference status as the 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); see Diaz v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 499 Fed.Appx. 853, 856 (11th Cir. 2012) (). The USCIS must determine whether there is “substantial and probative evidence” of such a fraudulent marriage. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(1)(ii); Matter of Samsen, 15 I. & N. Dec. 28, 29 (BIA 1974).
Courts ordinarily have jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to review final decisions made by federal administrative agencies. See 5 U.S.C. § 704. However, the APA expressly blocks such jurisdiction where “statutes preclude judicial review” or “agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a); see also Perez v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigr. Servs., 774 F.3d 960, 965 (11th Cir. 2014).
The INA contains one such jurisdiction-stripping provision, which states:
[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any . . . decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney...
To continue reading
Request your trial