Singh v. United States
| Decision Date | 22 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:20cv799 |
| Parties | Ranjit Singh, et al., Plaintiffs, v. United States of America, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter concerns the denial of a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative ("Form I-130 Petition") filed by Plaintiff Kristine Singh (hereinafter "Ms. Singh") on behalf of her husband Plaintiff Ranjit Singh (hereinafter "Mr. Singh"). Ms. Singh's Form I-130 Petition was denied by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") and the denial was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). Plaintiffs seek review under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
Currently pending is the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by Defendants United States of America; William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States; Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"); Kenneth Cuccinelli, Senior Official Performing Duties of the Director of USCIS; Anna Chau, District Director of USCIS District N12; and Karyn Zarlenga, Cleveland Field Office Director of USCIS.1 (Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiffs filed a Brief in Opposition on August 10, 2020, to which Defendants replied on August 24,2020. (Doc. Nos. 6, 7.) Plaintiffs thereafter filed a Response to Defendants' Reply, which Defendants have moved to strike. (Doc. Nos. 8, 9.)
For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 9) is DENIED. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth herein.
The Complaint contains the following factual allegations. In September 1990, Mr. Singh entered the United States without inspection at or near Brownsville, Texas. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 15.) Eleven years later, in 2001, Mr. Singh married Heidi Newrones (hereinafter "Ms. Newrones"), a United States citizen. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Ms. Newrones subsequently filed a Form I-130 Petition on Mr. Singh's behalf, and Mr. Singh concurrently filed a Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.2 (Id.)
Mr. Singh's and Ms. Newrones's marriage came to an end in 2003. Specifically, a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage was filed on June 11, 2003 and an Entry and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage was thereafter issued on August 28, 2003. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Two years later, in August 2005, Ms. Newrones's Form I-130 Petition was denied "as the marriage between Mr. Singh and Ms. Newrones was terminated." (Id. at ¶ 18.) In addition, Mr. Singh's Form I-485 Petition was administratively closed "as USCIS did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the application, as Mr.Singh was still under the jurisdiction of the Immigration Judge." (Id.) See also Doc. No. 1-3 at PageID# 14.
Several years later, on May 6, 2013, Mr. Singh married Plaintiff Kristine Singh (then-known as Kristine Vincent) in Cleveland, Ohio. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Ms. Singh subsequently filed the instant Form I-130 Petition on Mr. Singh's behalf. (Id.) Attachments to the Complaint indicate that Ms. Singh submitted various evidence in support of the Petition, including (1) joint checking account statements; (2) bank cards; (3) a copy of a lease agreement for Plaintiffs' purported marital residence; (4) various bills in Mr. Singh's name; (5) a Verizon wireless call log; (6) copies of Plaintiffs' marriage license and marriage record; (7) a copy of the Separation Agreement and Entry and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage between Mr. Singh and Ms. Newrones; (8) six notarized statements attesting to the validity of Plaintiffs' marriage; and (9) copies of various photographs. See Doc. No. 1-3 at PageID#s 14-15.
In March 2016, Mr. and Ms. Singh appeared for an interview with an Immigration Services officer in connection with the Form I-130 Petition. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 20.) Based on statements made by Plaintiffs during the interview, and USCIS's review of the evidence submitted, USCIS determined that "the testimony and documentary evidence in the record did not establish the claimed relationship" between Mr. and Ms. Singh. (Doc. No. 1-3 at PageID# 15.) USCIS therefore referred Ms. Singh's Form I-130 Petition for "further investigation regarding the bona fides of [Plaintiffs'] current marriage and [Mr. Singh's] prior marriage to Heidi Newrones." (Id.)
"Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs," immigration officials subsequently contacted Ms. Newrones in August 2016 regarding her previous marriage to Mr. Singh. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 21.) USCIS later summarized its conversation with Ms. Newrones as follows:
USCIS officers spoke with the beneficiary's prior spouse, Heidi Newrones. Newrones stated that she met the beneficiary through a friend who worked with the beneficiary'scousin and had known him for seven years prior to the marriage. She admitted the beneficiary asked her several times to marry him as a favor before she complied. She stated that she felt bad and was concerned for his safety if he returned back to India. She stated they signed a lease together at 147 Deerfield Lane, Aurora, Ohio, however the beneficiary never moved in with her. She stated the beneficiary lived in Maple Heights, exact address was unknown. She stated the beneficiary paid half the rent. She stated the marriage was never consummated and a bona fide girlfriend/boyfriend relationship never existed and admitted it was not a real marriage. She stated that she was never paid to marry the beneficiary and admitted to being in a relationship with her current spouse during the entire marriage.
(Doc. No. 1-3 at PageID#s 15-16.) In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Newrones was coerced into making the above statements, alleging that "immigration officials confronted Ms. Newrones, accused her of fraud, and threatened her with fines and jail time if she did not admit her marriage to Mr. Singh was a sham." (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 21.) In addition, Plaintiffs allege that, at the time of her interview with USCIS, Ms. Newrones was in severe pain and awaiting back surgery. (Id.)
Attachments to the Complaint indicate that USCIS also conducted an unannounced visit to Plaintiffs' marital residence as part of its further investigation regarding Ms. Singh's Form I-130 Petition. (Doc. No. 1-3 at PageID# 16.) The Immigration officers noted that Mr. Singh was not at the residence at the time of the visit and, further, that a visual inspection of the residence revealed "minimum [sic] personal belongings" of Mr. Singh.3 (Id. at PageID#s 16-17.) The officers noted that there were no daily transactions or withdrawals in the Plaintiffs' joint checking account and that Ms. Singh admitted she had a personal account at a different bank which she used on a daily basis. (Id.) The USCIS officers then visited the home of Ms. Singh's mother, Linda Abood. (Id. at PageID# 17.) According to the officers, Ms. Abood made several statements that contradicted statements madeby Ms. Singh. (Id.) Lastly, the USCIS officers visited one of Plaintiffs' neighbors. (Id.) This neighbor was able to identify Ms. Singh and her two children but did not recognize a photo of Mr. Singh. (Id.)
On August 10, 2017, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny ("NOID") Ms. Singh's Form I-130 Petition. (Id. at ¶ 22.) Therein, the USCIS advised Ms. Singh that "the evidence supporting the Form I-130 Petition was insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought." (Doc. No. 1-3 at PageDI#s 17-18.) Plaintiffs do not attach the NOID to the Complaint; however, the subsequent decision of the USCIS denying the Petition indicates that the NOID specifically cited the "discrepancies and evidentiary shortcomings" discussed above and provided Plaintiffs the opportunity to respond. (Id. at PageID# 18.)
On September 18, 2017, Plaintiffs responded to the NOID and submitted additional pieces of evidence in support of the Petition, including (1) a brief from Plaintiffs' attorney; (2) copies of joint bank statements and personal money orders; (3) utility bills; and (4) affidavits from Ms. Singh, Mr. Singh, and Ms. Singh's son M. R. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 23; Doc. No. 1-3 at PageID# 18.) In addition, on May 2, 2018, Plaintiffs submitted additional evidence in support of the Petition, after requesting and receiving information in response to a Freedom of Information Privacy Act ("FOIA") request. (Doc. No. 1-3 at PageID# 18.) The additional evidence submitted in support of the Petition included the following: (1) a brief from Plaintiffs' attorney; (2) copies of letters from USCIS's FOIA Operations division; (3) copies of six redacted affidavits obtained via Plaintiffs' FOIA request; and (4) copies of an Immigration Officer's notes, also obtained via the FOIA request. (Id.)
According to USCIS's summary,4 in his affidavit, Mr. Singh averred that he did not marry either Ms. Newrones or Ms. Singh for immigration purposes. (Id. at PageID# 19.) He explained that he did not have substantial personal items at his marital residence with Ms. Singh "as he sometimes remains in Akron because of work." (Id.) He further stated that there were, in fact, other personal items of his in the marital residence that USCIS did not see during the unannounced visit. (Id.) Likewise, in her affidavit, Ms. Singh insisted that she and Mr. Singh are in a bona fide relationship. (Id. at PageID# 18.) She explained that, due to several health issues, she is unable to drive Mr. Singh back and forth from his job in Akron and, therefore, many nights he has to stay in Akron. (Id. at PageID# 18.) Ms. Singh indicated that she and Mr. Singh do, in fact, regularly use their joint bank account and, further, that many of Mr. Singh's personal belongings are located at their marital residence. (Id.) Finally, Ms. Singh indicated that her mother (Ms. Abood) may have been confused by the Immigration officers' questions, and that the neighbor may not have ever seen Mr. Singh because of his (Mr. Singh's) work schedule in Akron. (Id.)
On ...
To continue reading
Request your trial