Ma v. United Statescis Dir., Case No. 15-cv-05672-MEJ

• Decision Date: 21 September 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 15-cv-05672-MEJ
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: WENMIN MA, Plaintiff, v. USCIS DIRECTOR, Defendant.

WENMIN MA, Plaintiff, v. USCIS DIRECTOR, Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05672-MEJ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

September 21, 2016

ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 20, 21

INTRODUCTION

This Order considers whether the United States Citizen and Immigration Service ("USCIS") properly revoked the visa petition for Plaintiff Wenmin Ma ("Plaintiff") following the death of her mother, the petitioner. Pending before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Pl.'s Mot., Dkt. No. 20; Def.'s Mot., Dkt. No. 21. Having considered the parties' positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Defendant USCIS Director's ("Defendant") Motion and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is the daughter of Shuzen Li. Certified Administrative Record ("AR") 27, Dkt. No. 17-18¹; see also AR 46. Li, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, became a United States permanent resident on January 31, 2007. AR 19. On May 1, 2007, Li filed a petition for alien relative (Form I-130) to classify Plaintiff as her unmarried daughter. AR 13-15. USCIS approved the I-130 petition on July 20, 2009, classifying Plaintiff as the unmarried daughter of a lawful permanent resident. Id.; AR 9.

Li naturalized on February 26, 2013, and consequently, the I-130 petition was automatically converted to a petition for the unmarried son or daughter of a U.S. citizen. AR 11.² However, Li died on October 30, 2014. AR 6. The State Department's National Visa Center sent a memorandum to USCIS on July 9, 2015, regarding Li's I-130 petition. AR 4. The memorandum stated that the I-130's beneficiary, Plaintiff, appeared to not be eligible for the benefit sought due to the death of the petitioner and recommended the petition be revoked. Id.

USCIS issued a notice of decision to Li's estate on August 24, 2015, stating that due to Li's death and pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C), the I-130 petition was automatically revoked as of the date of its approval. AR 2. The notice included instruction on how to request reinstatement of the I-130 petition's approval under 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C)(2). Id.

Plaintiff filed this case on December 11, 2015. Compl., Dkt. No. 1. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, she seeks review of USCIS's decision to revoke Li's I-130 petition due to Li's death. Id. at ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") only authorizes USCIS to revoke an immigrant visa petition where the evidence warrants denial (id. at ¶ 11), and alleges the revocation in this case was unlawful because Plaintiff continued to be Li's daughter even after her mother's death (id. at ¶ 12-13). In her Motion, Plaintiff contends that as she remains the unmarried daughter of Li, USCIS should not have revoked the petition. See Pl.'s Mot. Plaintiff argues that "[t]he single question before this Court is whether the death of Shuzhen Li would have been a good and sufficient cause to deny her petition upon her daughter's behalf under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(1) at the time it was approved. In other words, does the unmarried daughter of a citizen continue to be the unmarried daughter of a citizen after her citizen mother has died?" Pl.'s Mot. at 7.

Defendant phrases the issue somewhat differently: "whether Li's death was a 'good and sufficient cause' to revoke an approved petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1155[.]" Def.'s Reply at 2-3 (emphasis in original). Defendant argues USCIS's revocation adhered to the INA's regulatory scheme, which provides for the automatic revocation of approved immediate relative petitions upon the death of a petitioner. See Def.'s Mot.³ As such, USCIS argues it properly utilized its discretion to revoke the petition in this case. Id.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") provides for judicial review of final agency decisions. 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706.⁴ Courts routinely resolve APA challenges to agency administrative decisions by summary judgment. Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1481 (9th Cir. 1994). However, courts do not utilize the standard analysis for determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Occidental Eng'g Co. v. INS., 753 F.2d 766, 769-70 (9th Cir. 1985). In reviewing an agency action, a court "is not required to resolve any facts in a review of an administrative proceeding." Id. at 769. "[T]he function of the district court is to determine whether or not as a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency to make the decision it did." Id. "Because the presence of the administrative record, which the parties have stipulated to, usually means there are no genuine disputes of material fact, it allows the Court to decide whether to set aside the agency determination on summary judgment without a trial." Sodipo v. Rosenberg, 77 F. Supp. 3d 997, 1001 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2015) (citing Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973) (per curiam)).

Under the APA, a reviewing court may set aside a final agency action if it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The standard of review under § 706(2)(A) is deferential; a court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983); see also Sierra Club v. Clark, 756 F.2d 686, 690 (9th Cir. 1985) ("Traditionally, an agency's interpretation of its own regulation is entitled to a high degree of deference if it is not unreasonable."). Judicial review under the APA is "narrow but searching andcareful," and courts need not uphold agency actions where "there has been a clear error of judgment." Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

DISCUSSION

A. Overview & Arguments

The INA imposes a numerical quota on the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of aliens who may otherwise be admitted into the United States for permanent residence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(a). However, "[t]he State Department prioritizes visa applications made by 'the unmarried sons or daughters of citizens of the United States.'" Federiso v. Holder, 605 F.3d 695, 696 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(1)). Specifically, the INA provides that lawful permanent residents of the United States, under certain conditions, may petition USCIS for classification of their alien son or daughter as an "immediate relative." 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a)(2)(B), 1154(a)(1)(B)(i). The lawful permanent resident must file a Form I-130 petition seeking formal recognition by USCIS of the relationship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a). The filing date of a petition constitutes the "priority date" and establishes the beneficiary's place in the queue for an immigrant visa. 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(b).

The USCIS must approve the petition and notify the State Department if USCIS determines the facts of the petition are true and the listed beneficiary is an authorized immediate relative of the petitioner. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b). But approval of the petition does not guarantee the alien will receive a visa. See Montoya v. Holder, 744 F.3d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 2014) ("[T]he mere filing and approval of a Form I-130 creates no vested right."); Tongatapu Woodcraft Haw., Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305, 1308 (9th Cir. 1984) ("[A visa petition] does not guarantee that a visa will be issued, nor does it grant the alien any right to remain in the United States."). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1155, "[t]he Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition."

The INA gives the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (the "Secretary") authority to promulgate regulations to administer the Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1),(3). The Secretary has consequently promulgated regulations identifying situations where the revocation of an approved petition is automatic. 8 C.F.R. § 205.1. One such situation is the death of the petitioner, if the death occurs before the beneficiary comes to the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C). Any such revocation is effective as of the date of the approval of the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a). Specifically, the relevant regulation applied by the USCIS in this case provides in pertinent part:

(a) Reasons for automatic revocation. The approval of a petition or self-petition made under section 204 of the Act and in accordance with part 204 of this chapter is revoked as of the date of approval:

. . .

(3) If any of the following circumstances occur before the beneficiary's or self-petitioner's journey to the United States commences or, if the beneficiary or self-petitioner is an applicant for adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident, before the decision on his or her adjustment application becomes final:

(i) Immediate relative and family-sponsored petitions, other than Amerasian petitions.

. . . .

(C) Upon the death of the petitioner, unless:

. . .

(2) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determines, as a matter of discretion exercised for humanitarian reasons in light of the facts of a particular case, that it is inappropriate to revoke the approval of the petition. USCIS may make this determination only if the principal beneficiary of the visa petition asks for reinstatement of the approval of the petition and establishes that a person related to the principal beneficiary in one of the ways described in section 213A(f)(5)(B) of the Act is willing and able to file an affidavit of support under 8 CFR part 213a as a substitute sponsor.

8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a). Defendant asserts that "[a]utomatic revocations...