Caplash v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 18 January 2017
• Docket Number: 6:15–CV–06771 EAW
• Citation: 230 F.Supp.3d 128
• Parties: Jolly Manoj CAPLASH, Plaintiff, v. Jeh JOHNSON, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Leon Rodriguez, Director, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service, Mark Hazuda, Director, USCIS Nebraska Service Center, Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

230 F.Supp.3d 128

Jolly Manoj CAPLASH, Plaintiff,

v.Jeh JOHNSON, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Leon Rodriguez, Director, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service, Mark Hazuda, Director, USCIS Nebraska Service Center, Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States, Defendants.

6:15–CV–06771 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed January 18, 2017

Jeffrey A. Wadsworth, Harter Secrest & Emery LLP, Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff.

Genevieve M. Kelly, Katherine J. Shinners, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

Over ten years ago, Plaintiff Jolly Manoj Caplash ("Plaintiff") filed a Form I–130 family-based immigration petition on behalf of his brother with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS"). Plaintiff later relocated and did not update his address with USCIS. As a result, he did not receive USCIS's request for evidence and notice of the denial of the petition until nearly three years after-the-fact. He filed two motions to reopen his petition, both of which were denied as untimely.

Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (the "APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 –559, 701 –706, against the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Director of USCIS, the Director of the USCIS Nebraska Service Center, and the Attorney General of the United States (collectively, "Defendants") and asks this Court to set aside Defendants' denial and subsequent refusals to reopen Plaintiff's Form I–130 petition. Plaintiff contends that USCIS sent notices to an address that it knew was defunct, and thus he never had an opportunity to provide the additional information requested by USCIS. Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to notify USCIS about his updated address, and thus they were under no obligation to take further steps to provide Plaintiff with reasonable notice before denying the Form I–130 petition.

Because Plaintiff was deprived of due process by Defendants' decision to deny his Form I–130 petition, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part (Dkt. 18) and remands the case to USCIS with directions that Plaintiff's priority date be restored, Plaintiff be provided with a reasonable opportunity to provide the additional evidence requested by USCIS, and USCIS re-adjudicate Plaintiff's Form I–130 petition in accordance with this Decision and Order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed and drawn from the parties' Rule 56 Statements of Fact unless otherwise noted.

Plaintiff, born Manoj Kaplash, changed his name to Jolly Manoj Caplash upon his naturalization as a United States citizen on February 20, 2003. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 1; Dkt. 21–2 at 1). On or about March 10, 2004, while residing in Gaithersburg, Maryland, Plaintiff filed a Form I–130 family-based immigration petition with USCIS on behalf of his brother, Rupinder Kaplash.¹ (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 2; Dkt. 21–2 at 1). At the time, Plaintiff was not represented by counsel. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 3; Dkt. 21–2 at 1). On March 20, 2004, the USCIS Vermont Service Center confirmed receipt of the petition, as indicated by a Form I–797 receipt notice sent to Plaintiff's home in Maryland. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 4; Dkt. 21–2 at 1).

Plaintiff and Defendants dispute whether the Form I–797 informed Plaintiff of the need to update USCIS regarding changes in his address. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 5; Dkt. 21–2 at 1–2). The form stated: "The above application or petition has been received. It normally takes 150 to 999 days from the date of this receipt for us to process this type of case. Please notify us immediately if any of the above information is incorrect." (Administrative Transcript (hereinafter "Tr.") 10, 181).

Plaintiff relocated to Rochester, New York in July 2005, where he accepted a position as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 6; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). He changed his address with the United States Postal Service (the "USPS"), believing that this action would sufficiently notify the federal government, including USCIS, of his new address. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 7; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). When Plaintiff filed the Form I–130 petition in 2004, he knew that there was a substantial waiting period for family-based, fourth-preference immigrant visas and that it would probably take many years, even a decade, before such a visa would become available for his brother. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 8; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). Thus, he was not surprised when he did not receive communication from USCIS regarding the petition. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 8; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). Plaintiff filed federal tax returns each year, listing his current mailing address, and his oral surgery practice website listed his name, telephone number, office address, fax number, and email address. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶¶ 9–10; Dkt. 21–2 at 2).

In March 2013, Plaintiff hired an immigration attorney to follow up with USCIS about the status of his Form I–130 petition filed on behalf of his brother. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 11; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). As of April 2, 2013, USCIS's case status website indicated that Plaintiff's case was still under "Initial Review" and that USCIS had not made a decision. (Dkt. 18–21 ¶ 2; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). The site also stated: "On September 3, 2010, the post office returned the notice we last sent you on this case.... This may have serious effects on processing this case," and included a phone number to call to update the address on file and have the notice resent. (Tr. 186).²

Plaintiff, through his attorney, submitted a Form G–639 Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request on May 14, 2013, to learn more about the status of the case, requesting copies of materials relating to his 2004 Form I–130 petition. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 14; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). On May 28, 2013, the USCIS National Records Center denied the FOIA request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) by letter, stating that Plaintiff's request constituted an unwarranted invasion of his brother's personal privacy. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 15; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). On June 10, 2013, Plaintiff renewed his FOIA request by letter, stating that he was requesting copies only of records relating to the petition that he had filed himself and was not seeking to invade his brother's personal privacy. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 16; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). On June 19, 2013, the USCIS National Records Center denied Plaintiff's second FOIA request under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), stating that the FOIA request constituted an unwarranted invasion of Plaintiff's brother's privacy. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 17; Dkt. 21–2 at 2).

After several unsuccessful attempts, Plaintiff's attorney was able to speak with a USCIS officer on July 16, 2013, regarding the I–130 petition and to update the address on file and resolve any other issues. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 18; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). Following this call, an email notice from USCIS on July 19, 2013, provided Plaintiff with his first notice that USCIS had denied his Form I–130 petition nearly three years earlier, on August 20, 2010. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 18; Dkt. 21–2 at 2).

On August 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed a third FOIA request, including notarized letters from his brother and himself, authorizing the release of the case file. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 19; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). On August 9, 2013, already aware that USCIS had denied his petition but prior to receipt of the case file, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen and reconsider the denial of his I–130 petition. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 20; Dkt. 21–2 at 2; Tr. 176). In the motion, Plaintiff explained that he had not received any notices or correspondences in the case and, when he first learned through the USCIS website that a notice had been returned as undeliverable, he immediately took action to determine the nature of the returned notice and status of the case. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 20; Dkt. 21–2 at 2).

On August 15, 2013, the USCIS National Records Center denied Plaintiff's third FOIA request by letter for lack of verification of identity in the form of a letter stating the full name, current address, and date and place of birth of the record's subject. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 21; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). On September 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed a fourth FOIA request with notarized statements and verifications of identity for himself and his brother. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 22; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). Finally, by letter dated November 29, 2013, the USCIS National Records Center granted Plaintiff's fourth FOIA request—over six months after Plaintiff first attempted to obtain information from USCIS—and produced an 18–page record, which stated that the record consisted of the best reproducible copies of all records responsive to Plaintiff's request, released in full. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 23;Dkt.21–2 at 2).

The FOIA case file included a July 17, 2009 notice from USCIS of the transfer of Plaintiff's case to the Nebraska Service Center; the notice had been mailed to Plaintiff's previous address in Maryland and returned to USCIS as undeliverable. (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 24; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). The returned mail stated in handwriting, "Moved out at least 10 months ago (if he/she ever lived here)." (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 24; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). The case file also included a June 24, 2010 Request for Evidence ("RFE") letter, which had also been mailed to Plaintiff's Maryland address and returned with a handwritten note stating, "moved years ago." (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 25; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). This RFE letter in the case file indicated that the "documentation submitted is not sufficient to warrant favorable consideration of the petition" and instructed the reader to "see Attachment for Details," though the letter in the case file contained no such attachment.³ (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 26; Dkt. 21–2 at 2). The FOIA case file also included a letter from August 20, 2010—issued two months after the RFE letter—denying the I–130 petition for failure to respond to the RFE, which was mailed to Plaintiff's Maryland address and returned with the handwritten note, "MOVED LONG AGO ... AWAY." (Dkt. 18–2 ¶ 27; Dkt. 21–2 at 2).

Plaintiff made three attempts to update his pending motion to reopen and reconsider to...