Singh v. Cissna, Case No. 1:18-cv-00782-SKO

• Decision Date: 29 July 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:18-cv-00782-SKO
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: GURKAMAL SINGH and ROSIE SANDHU, Plaintiffs, v. L. FRANCIS CISSNA, Director, United States Citizenship & Immigration Services; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; JEFF SESSIONS, Acting United States Attorney General, Defendants.

GURKAMAL SINGH and ROSIE SANDHU, Plaintiffs, v. L. FRANCIS CISSNA, Director, United States Citizenship & Immigration Services;

KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security;

JEFF SESSIONS, Acting United States Attorney General, Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00782-SKO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

July 29, 2019

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docs. 52, 53)

Plaintiffs Gurkamal Singh and Rosie Sandhu bring this action challenging the denial of a Petition for Alien Relative, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Form I-130, filed by Plaintiff Sandhu on behalf of her husband, Plaintiff Singh. (See Doc. 38.) Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and Defendants' cross motion for summary judgment. (Docs. 52, 53.) Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion on May 20, 2019. (See Doc. 53.) Plaintiffs filed a reply brief and opposition to Defendants' cross motion for summary judgment on June 3, 2019. (Doc. 54.) Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiffs' response on June 17, 2019. (Doc. 55.)

Upon review of the motions and supporting documents, and the administrative record, (Doc. 49), the Court deemed the matters suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and vacated the hearing set for July 10, 2019. (See Doc. 57.)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and grants Defendants' cross motion for summary judgment.¹

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff Singh is a citizen of India who entered the United States without inspection on or about March 7, 1996, at or near Brownsville, Texas. (Administrative Record ("AR") 2286.) On April 20, 1997, Plaintiff Singh filed a petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. (AR 265, 2286.) On August 13, 1997, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") initiated removal proceedings against Plaintiff Singh and issued him a notice to appear before an immigration judge. (AR 265, 2286.)

In 2000, Plaintiff Singh, while living in Fresno, California, met Evelyn Williams, a U.S. citizen who lived in Buttonwillow, California. (AR 331, 2286.) On April 24, 2001, Plaintiff Singh married Ms. Williams in Las Vegas, Nevada. (AR 966-67, 2286.) On April 30, 2001, Ms. Williams filed an I-130 petition on behalf of Plaintiff Singh to initiate the process for him to become a lawful permanent resident of the United States. (AR 962, 2286.) In support of the petition, Ms. Williams and Plaintiff Singh submitted three copies of wedding photographs and a copy of their marriage certificate. (AR 297-315, 334-37, 966-67, 973-74, 976, 2286.)

Plaintiff Singh and Ms. Williams were originally scheduled to appear for an interview in support of their I-130 petition on July 24, 2002, but the interview was rescheduled because Plaintiff Singh allegedly required a Punjabi/English interpreter. (AR 956-57, 2286.) On October 8, 2002, Plaintiff Singh and Ms. Williams appeared, without an interpreter, at the INS office in San Francisco, California, to provide sworn testimony and documentation in support of their I-130 petition. (AR 976, 2286.) The interviews of Ms. Williams and Plaintiff Singh, which wereconducted separately, were video recorded. (AR 976, 2286.)

During the interview with the USCIS officer, Ms. Williams allegedly made statements under oath that demonstrated to USCIS that the marriage between Ms. Williams and Plaintiff Singh was fraudulent. (AR 2286.) The administrative record contains the following handwritten statement purportedly signed and executed by Ms. Williams on October 8, 2002:

Oh my, I got a call from Peter Singh who asked me if I would be willing to get a so called husband. I said maybe and asked why. Later that day Peter and another man stopped by at my house and we talked a little more about what I needed in a man a housemate [sic]. This all took place the afternoon of the 4/23/01. When Kamel's uncle agreed to pay my PG&E bill in the amount of $1800.00 I said OK. Then 4/24/01 we went to Las Vegas. Where we were married 4/25/01 [sic]. We never have had sex. He has never truly moved in with me. From time to time he calls or stops by my house. We talk more on the phone than in person. I married him because I needed a man around the house, because I was being harassed by my ex-husband and my house was broken into. I just wanted a man there sometime. Also in the agreement he would be able to receive a greencard. If I would stay married to him [sic].

(AR 955, 2286-87.) Following the interview, Ms. Williams withdrew her I-130 petition on behalf of Plaintiff Singh, stating, "[t]his is a fake marriage. And I am requesting to be out of this marriage." (AR 954, 2287.)

After the interview on October 8, 2002, Plaintiff Singh was placed into custody by USCIS agents. (AR 22, 2287.) When agents confronted Plaintiff Singh with Ms. Williams' statements, "he denied everything and stated that his marriage to [Ms. Williams] was real." (AR 2287.) While in custody, Plaintiff Singh initially "refused to provide [Ms. Williams] with any money to return home" from San Francisco to Buttonwillow, but "after further discussion" provided her with some money to use on her return trip home. (AR 22, 2287.)

On June 17, 2003, an immigration judge denied Plaintiff Singh's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection and issued a removal order against Plaintiff Singh. (AR 2287.) Plaintiff Singh and Ms. Williams divorced on March 1, 2004. (See Doc. 39-8.)

Plaintiff Singh married Plaintiff Sandhu, a U.S. citizen, in Elkton, Maryland, on September 1, 2006. (AR 1136.) Plaintiff Sandhu has filed a series of three unsuccessful I-130 petitions on behalf of Plaintiff Singh. (AR 610, 621, 815, 2643.) The first was filed on October 23, 2006, andwas denied by USCIS in a decision dated September 30, 2009. (AR 815-28.) The second petition was filed on September 23, 2011, and was denied by USCIS on January 6, 2014. (AR 585, 610, 616, 621.) Plaintiff Sandhu appealed the denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed the appeal on January 20, 2015. (AR 521, 529.)

On July 13, 2016, Plaintiff Sandhu filed her third I-130 petition ("the Petition") on behalf of Plaintiff Singh, which forms the basis of this lawsuit. (AR 2643.) In support of the Petition, Plaintiff Sandhu submitted a marriage certificate; a divorce certificate; sworn declarations/statements; utility bills; joint bank account statements; joint tax returns; family photos; birth certificate; the expert declaration of Alan Hirsch, Esq., and Mr. Hirsch's curriculum vitae, in connection with his analysis of Ms. Williams' October 8, 2002 interview; and a letter from Jeffrey Pearce, a private investigator, reporting Ms. Williams' statements from when Mr. Pearce attempted to inquire about the marriage to Plaintiff Singh. (See AR 2288.)

In his declaration, Mr. Hirsch opined that Ms. Williams was "subject to the interrogation tactics that contribute to false confessions by leading people to conclude that maintaining innocence is futile whereas acknowledging guilt will be benign." (AR 2702-711.) Mr. Pearce's letter, dated November 6, 2015, indicates he spoke with Ms. Williams regarding Plaintiff Singh via telephone in February 2015. (AR 2712-13.) Mr. Pearce stated Ms. Williams

became extremely defensive and started using vulgar language. She [] repeatedly stated that she does not want to get involved anymore with this immigration case because she is afraid of going to jail and being afflicted with a $250,000.00 fine as threatened by immigration officers when she attended the I-130 interview several years ago with Gurkamal Singh. She was also told if she ever tried to change what the record shows she said at the time of the interview they would prosecute her and put in her jail for 10 years.

(AR 2712.) Mr. Pearce also stated Ms. Williams said she is "deathly afraid because she was warned and threatened about getting involved in this case over and over again by those specific agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the interview" and "especially believes they can and will put her in jail because of her criminal history." (AR 2712.) Mr. Pearce's letter indicates that Ms. Williams "vividly remembers how afraid she was at the interview and how much she cried and sobbed at the time she signed a statement she was compelled to write." (AR 2712.)

On February 23, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiff Singh's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Singh v. Sessions, 678 F. App'x 515 (9th Cir. 2017). On March 30, 2017, Plaintiff Singh filed an application for stay of deportation or removal for twelve months beginning March 10, 2017. (AR 1119-127.) Plaintiff Singh's petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied by the Ninth Circuit in October 2017. (AR 1292.)

On August 9, 2017, Plaintiffs personally appeared for an interview relating to the Petition at the USCIS Philadelphia Field Office. (AR 2289.) During the interview, Plaintiff Singh was asked additional questions to obtain sworn testimony regarding his marital relationship with Ms. Williams. (AR 2289.) He testified that he could not remember if he or Ms. Williams proposed because the decision to get married "just happened." (AR 2289.)

On October 19, 2017, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny ("NOID") the Petition. (See AR 2289.) In response, Plaintiff Sandhu submitted rebuttal evidence in the form of 18 documents along with a 31-page letter from her attorney, which claimed that Ms. Williams was subjected to abuse, intimidated, and coerced by the interviewing USCIS...