Mirjan v. Attorney Gen. of the United States

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
• Writing for the Court: GREENAWAY
• Decision Date: 28 August 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11-1218,11-1218
• Citation: Mirjan v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, No. 11-1218 (3rd Cir. Aug 28, 2012)
• Parties: HUSSEIN ALI MUHAMMED MIRJAN, Appellant v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; EVANGELIA A. KLAPAKIS, or Successor Field Office Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services -Philadelphia District

HUSSEIN ALI MUHAMMED MIRJAN, Appellant

v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; EVANGELIA A. KLAPAKIS,or Successor Field Office Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services -Philadelphia District

No. 11-1218

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Opinion Filed: August 28, 2012

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Civ. No. 5-10-cv-04641)

District Judge: Honorable J. William Ditter, Jr.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 26, 2012

Before: GREENAWAY, JR., ROTH, and TASHIMA^* , Circuit Judges.

OPINION

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

This case arises from Appellant Hussein Ali Muhammed Mirjan's ("Mirjan") denied petitions to adjust his immigration status with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("CIS" or "the agency"). After his appeal was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), Mirjan filed the instant action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking review under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") of the BIA's decision not to adjust status. The District Court dismissed Mirjan's complaint for failure to state a claim. For the reasons stated herein, we will affirm the District Court's order dismissing Mirjan's complaint.

I. BACKGROUND

Because we write primarily for the benefit of the parties, we recount only the essential facts.

Mirjan, a citizen of Iraq, married Bridget Marie Bossler ("Bossler"), a United States citizen, on June 26, 2005. In December 2005, the couple filed petitions to adjust Mirjan's status to that of a permanent resident. A CIS representative interviewed them on June 29, 2006. Bossler died on August 31, 2009, while the petitions were still pending. As a result of Bossler's death, Mirjan's initial I-130 petition (for an alien relative) was converted to an I-360 (for amerasian, widow(er), or special immigrant). A CIS representative interviewed Mirjan again in October 2009, after which it provided him with a Notice of Intent to Deny his petition based on discrepancies in the record. Mirjan replied and provided additional information in the hope that he might persuade the CIS ofthe validity of his petition. Specifically, Mirjan tried to explain discrepancies in the dates of co-habitation and occupancy at certain residences. Nonetheless, the CIS denied his petition on December 16, 2009, finding that Mirjan failed to establish that he and Bossler "were engaged in a bona fide marital relationship." (App. at A17). Mirjan appealed the decision, and the BIA denied his appeal on August 13, 2010.

Mirjan filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the CIS decision not to adjust status was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mirjan now appeals the District Court's order dismissing the case.

II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We exercise plenary review of a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Grief v. Klem, 591 F.3d 672, 676 (3d Cir. 2010). To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because we apply the same standard of review under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") as the district court, we apply de novo review to its assessment of the agency's decision. See Albert Einstein Med. Ctr. v. Sebelius, 566 F.3d 368, 373 (3d Cir. 2009).

Our review of agency action is governed by the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706. We may only set aside agency actions, findings, and conclusions that are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). We apply the same standard when determining whether an agency's actions were an abuse of discretion or arbitrary and capricious. See Donovan v. Adams Steel Erection, Inc., 766 F.2d 804, 807 (3d Cir. 1985).

"The scope of review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is narrow, and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency." CBS Corp. v. F.C.C., 663 F.3d 122, 137 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)). "Where an agency departs from established precedent without announcing a principled reason for such reversal, its action is arbitrary and an abuse of discretion and should be reversed." Id. (internal citations omitted). Generally speaking, we will find an agency action to be arbitrary and capricious where

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. The reviewing court should not attempt itself to make up for such deficiencies; we may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency itself has not given.

Id. (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).

III. ANALYSIS

We address whether the CIS's decision to deny Mirjan's petition, based on its conclusion that Mirjan failed to show that he and Bossler were engaged in a bona fide marriage, is arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. The United States Codeexplicitly prohibits the approval of petitions from individuals who are participating in a sham marriage. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) ("[N]o petition shall be approved if . . . 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."). The burden of proof falls on the petitioner to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that his marriage was bona fide at its inception. See Matter of Laureano, 19 I & N Dec. 1, 3 (BIA 1983).

The record indicates that Mirjan presented several documents in support of his claim that he and Bossler were engaged in a bona fide marriage, including: the marriage certificate, Bossler's birth and death certificates, joint insurance policies, joint tax returns, joint credit card account statements, copies of bank statements, other bills, personal photographs and a copy of a lease from May 1, 2005 through April 30, 2006. Both Mirjan and Bossler provided statements about their marriage in a June 29, 2006 interview. Mirjan then presented additional statements in a second interview on October 22, 2009.

CIS noted a series of inconsistencies in the information Mirjan provided. Specifically, it cited numerous discrepancies between the lease documents used to establish the couple's cohabitation and the testimony from Mirjan, Bossler's father, and Bossler's friend, Megan Gilmer ("Gilmer"). For example, Bossler's father indicated that she resided with him from September 2008 until her death in August 2009. His testimony was supported by both information Bossler provided to authorities in an April 2009 criminal investigation indicating that she resided with her father and her obituary.This directly conflicted with Mirjan's statements and bills demonstrating that she was residing with him at the same time. Additionally, the CIS concluded that Mirjan's statement that he and Bossler moved in to a trailer at 15132-65 Kutztown Road in Kutztown, PA on June 26, 2005, after their marriage, conflicted with the fact...