Castaneira v. Mayorkas

• Docket Number: 1:22-cv-01485-RCL
• Decision Date: 10 July 2023
• Parties: RYAN CASTANEIRA, Plaintiff, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

1

RYAN CASTANEIRA, Plaintiff, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-01485-RCL

United States District Court, District of Columbia

July 10, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Ryan Castaneira, pro se, brings this action to challenge the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services's (“USCIS”) and Department of Homeland Security's (“DHS”) (collectively “defendants”) denial of his Form 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative (“1-130” or “petition”), filed on behalf of his Mexican national wife. See Am. Compl., ECF No. 15. Castaneira seeks, among other remedies, declaratory and injunctive relief that sets aside the decision by USCIS to deny his petition, see Decision Denying Petition (“Denial”), ECF No. 15-6, and declares that the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act of 2006 (“AWA”), Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, does not apply to his 1-130 proceedings; or, if the AWA does apply, compels defendants to review his petition under a “preponderance of the evidence” standard instead of a “beyond any reasonable doubt” standard. Am Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶¶ a-1.

Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss Am. Compl ECF No. 18. Upon consideration of the parties' filings the applicable law, and the facts of the case, the Court agrees with defendants and concludes that it has no jurisdiction to review Castaneira's challenges to USCIS's determination and that Castaneira has failed to state a plausible claim that the AWA does not apply to his proceedings. Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss will be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background

Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, including spouses and children, receive certain preferential treatment under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1151 (b)(2)(A)(i) (providing that immigration of immediate relatives is not subject to numerical limitations). As relevant here, a U.S. citizen may file a Form 1-130 petition with USCIS to classify the petitioner's foreign national spouse or child as an immediate relative to allow the beneficiary to immigrate to the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(i); 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.1(a)(1), 204.2.

In 2006, Congress passed the AWA, which, among other things, amended the INA to provide that USCIS must deny a U.S. citizen's Form 1-130 petition if the petitioner “has been convicted of a specified offense against a minor, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Secretary's sole and unreviewable discretion, determines that the citizen poses no risk” to the petitioner's beneficiary. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I). Congress has authorized USCIS by statute to make such determinations for the Secretary. See 6 U.S.C. § 271(b)(1). The provision of the AWA governing those determinations cross-references another statutory provision for its definition of “specified offense against a minor,” which includes the following:

(A) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving kidnapping.

(B) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving false imprisonment.

(C) Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.

(D) Use in a sexual performance.

(E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.

(F) Video voyeurism as described in section 1801 of Title 18.

(G) Possession, production, or distribution of child pornography.

(H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.

(I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor.

34 U.S.C. §20911(7); see 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(II). If a petitioner with a conviction involving any such offenses seeks classification of his foreign national spouse or child, USCIS must determine that the petitioner poses “no risk” to the beneficiary in order to approve the petition. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I).

B. Factual and Procedural Background

Castaneira is a U.S. citizen residing in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Am. Compl. ¶ 2. On September 20,2006, Castaneira was arrested in Georgia and charged with “Computer or Electronic Pornography, Computer Child Exploitation, and Driving While License Suspended or Revoked.” See Not. of Intent to Deny (“NOID”) at 2, ECF No. 15-1. The arrest “stemmfed] from a 2006 internet exchange on an adult-only website with” an individual whom Castaneira “believed not to have attained the age of majority” but who was in fact an adult “undercover police officer.” Am. Compl. ¶2. Subsequently, Castaneira was convicted of violating O.C.G.A. §§ 16-12-100.2(c)(1) (Computer or Electronic Pornography), 16-12-100.2(d)(1) (Computer Child Exploitation), and 16-4-1 (Criminal Attempt to Commit a Felony). NOID at 2. He was sentenced to ten years confinement, probation, and a fine, and he was required to register as a sex offender. Id.

In 2018, Castaneira married a Mexican national, Magdalena Perez Resendiz. Am. Compl. ¶ 2; NOID at 1. A year later, on August 19, 2019, Castaneira filed a Form 1-130 for adjustment of his wife's status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b). Am. Compl. ¶ 3. USCIS replied to Castaneira on March 8, 2022 with a notice of its intent to deny (“NOID”) his petition. See NOID. USCIS concluded that Castaneira's Georgia convictions qualified as “specified offense[s] against a minor” under the AWA, and thus Castaneira was likely ineligible to proceed with his Form 1-130 petition. Id. at 2-3 (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)).

The NOID described the process for showing that Castaneira's case did not fall under the AWA and, if the AWA applied, the process for showing that he presented “no risk” of harm to his wife, as well as the types of evidence to submit to support his claim. Id. at 3-6. It also stated that Castaneira bore the burden of establishing “beyond any reasonable doubt” that he posed no risk to the safety and well-being of his wife. Id. at 4. Finally, the NOID stated that a decision would not be reached for 87 days, during which time he would be permitted to submit evidence to overcome the reasons for denial. Id. at 6.

On May 26, 2022, Castaneira filed his initial pro se Complaint in this Court to contest the evidentiary standards applied to adjudicate his Form 1-130 petition and for a judgment declaring the AWA inapplicable to his convictions. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Subsequently, on June 13, 2022, Castaneira sent USCIS a response to the NOID with facts and evidence surrounding the nature and circumstances of his convictions. See Denial at 2. On August 24, 2022, with a final decision on the petition still pending, defendants moved to dismiss the initial Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ECF No. 6. Castaneira opposed the motion, ECF No. 9, and defendants filed a reply, ECF No. 10.

On November 10, 2022, USCIS formally denied Castaneira's petition. See Denial at 5. USCIS determined that Castaneira was ineligible to file the petition due to his prior convictions, reasoning that the evidence submitted did not prove his past crimes were not a “specified offense against a minor” as defined by the AWA, nor did it establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Castaneira posed no risk to the safety and well-being of his wife. Id. at 1-5. Defendants notified the Court about the agency's decision on the same day it was issued, see Defs.' Not. of Agency Decision, ECF No. 11, and Castaneira then sought leave to amend the Complaint, see Pl.'s Mots, to Amend, ECF Nos. 12 & 14. The Court granted Castaneira leave to amend his initial Complaint on November 22, 2022, see Minute Order (Nov. 22, 2022), and the Amended Complaint was docketed the following day, see Am. Compl.

Castaneira asserts five claims in the Amended Complaint:

1. That defendants failed to either follow or overrule USCIS's precedential decision in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I. & N. Dec. 369 (USCIS AAO 2010), and therefore violated the requirement that an agency follow its own regulations in making discretionary decisions, see United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954), Am. Compl. ¶¶ 60-64;

2. That defendants wrongfully applied a beyond any reasonable doubt standard rather than a preponderance of the evidence standard, in violation of Chawathe, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 65-68;

3. That Castaneira's convictions do not qualify as “specified offense[s] against a minor” as defined by 34 U.S.C. § 20911(7) and, consequently, the AWA does not apply to his case, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 69-73;

4. That the law is uncertain regarding the definitions of certain terms USCIS uses in reaching its “no risk” determination, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 74-78; and

5. That defendants' decision denying his petition violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) because it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a), Am. Compl. ¶¶ 79-85.

On January 23, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss Castaneira's Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss Am. Compl. Castaneira filed an opposition, see Pl.'s Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss Am. Compl., ECF No. 22, defendants filed a reply, see Defs.' Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss Am. Compl., ECF No. 26, and with the Court's leave, see Order, ECF No. 29, Castaneira filed a surreply, see Pl.'s Surreply in Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss Am. Compl., ECF No. 31. The motion is now ripe for review.

II. ...