Stoll v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.

Decision Date01 March 2021
Docket NumberCase No. 1:20-cv-666-BAM
PartiesGAYLAND DURSTON JORDAN STOLL, III, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
ORDER RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs Gayland-Durston Jordan Stoll, III ("plaintiff-son") and Gayland Durston Stoll, II ("plaintiff-father" and collectively "Plaintiffs") bring this civil action against Defendants Robert M. Cowan, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), Robert P. Barr, Attorney general of the United States, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Senior Official Performing Duties of Director of USCIS, Michael J. Creppy, Member of Board of Immigration Appeals, and Gary D. Malphrus, Acting Chairman of Board of Immigration Appeals (collectively "Defendants"). Plaintiffs seek judicial review of a denial of an I-130 petition by USCIS's National Benefits Center and the U.S. Department of Justice's Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to § 10(b) of the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 702, et seq., seeking review of Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' ("USCIS") decision, and the BIA's affirmance of that decision, denying Plaintiff- father's petition to classify Plaintiff-son, the beneficiary, as an immediate relative child. See 8 U.S.C. §1154(a)(1(A)(i) (right to petition) and §1151(b)(2)(A)(i) (definition of "immediate relative").The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment are now pending before the Court.1 (Doc. Nos. 14, 16.)

The motions were heard before the Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 12, 2021. Plaintiffs' Counsel Gregory W. Olson appeared by video conference. Defendants' Counsel Audrey Benison Hemesath appeared by video conference. Having considered the record, the parties' briefs and arguments, the relevant law, and the entire record, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background

Plaintiff-father is a United States citizen who is married and lives with his family in Porterville, California. In August 2000, Plaintiff-father and his wife met Plaintiff-son, Gayland-Durston Jordan Stoll, III, whose birth name was Jordan Carrillo Cruz, when he was three years old and living in Mexico with his biological parents. AR 100, 103.2 When Plaintiff-father and his wife met Plaintiff-son and his biological family, the child was suffering from various medical conditions, his family was living in poverty, and his biological mother was pregnant with twins. AR at 100. At the time Plaintiffs met, Plaintiff-son's biological parents were considering placing plaintiff-son in an orphanage temporarily. AR 216. Plaintiff-father and his wife consulted the United States Consulate in Mexico and the Mexican Department of Social Services to ensure that their actions were appropriate. AR 100, 103.

Plaintiff-son entered the United States on November 4, 2000. AR 72. He was brought to the United States by his biological father on visitor visas. AR 216. After observing the Stolls'living situation, the biological father "knew it was the right decision" and left Plaintiff-son in the custody of the Stolls. AR 216. The biological mother, who could not travel due to pregnancy, left the Plaintiff-son a letter telling him to be a good "son" and that he was now a part of their family. AR 176.

Plaintiff-father and his wife obtained temporary guardianship over the child on July 17, 2001 and permanent guardianship on September 14, 2001. AR 178-80 and 112. Plaintiff-father enrolled Plaintiff-son in his health and dental insurance. AR 106-07.

In or around 2006, Plaintiff-son's biological mother asked Plaintiff-father's wife if she and Plaintiff-father wanted to adopt Plaintiff-son. AR 103. On July 10, 2009, Plaintiff-father and his wife adopted Plaintiff-son eight and a half years after Plaintiff-son's entry into the United States. AR 76-78.

On May 27, 2014, Plaintiff-father filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative with USCIS on behalf of Plaintiff-son. AR 72-73. On November 25, 2014, USCIS issued a Request for Evidence identifying that the Hague Convention3 applied to adoptions finalized after April 1, 2008 and requesting additional evidence to support that the adoption was outside the convention. AR 261-66. On February 16, 2015, Plaintiffs responded to the first Request for Evidence with multiple affidavits, school records, medical records, legal documents from the adoption, and identity documents. AR 267-70. On June 28, 2016, USCIS issued a second request for Evidence identifying that the Hague convention appeared to apply to the adoption and requiring additional evidence in support of the petition. AR 126-133. On September 22, 2016, Plaintiff also responded to the second Request for Evidence with multiple affidavits, school records, letters from relevant parties, legal documents for the adoption and guardianship proceedings, and medical records. AR 134.

On January 31, 2017, USCIS issued a Notice of Denial to Plaintiffs' I-130 petition. AR 81-87. On March 3, 2017, Plaintiffs provided additional information after receiving the Notice of Intent to Deny including resubmitting evidence already submitted, additional affidavits andletters, more evidence of medical care and the manner of travel to and from Mexico in 2000. AR 88-117.

The biological parents both submitted declarations during the pendency of the I-130 petition. Plaintiff-son's biological mother stated that she did not see a future for him in Mexico, and that she made the decision so that he would know the comfort of a warm home and never have to worry about food or medical attention. AR 213, 216. Plaintiff-son's biological father stated that the Stolls entering their lives was a blessing and that the Stolls offered to be Plaintiff-son's guardian. AR 227-28. Plaintiff-son stated in his affidavit in support of the I-130 petition, that his biological parents eventually distanced themselves for him to focus on his "present family." AR 227-28.

On April 18, 2017, USCIS issued a denial of Plaintiffs' I-130 petition on the grounds that Plaintiff-father failed to provide sufficient evidence that the adoption falls outside the scope of the Hague Convention. AR 20. On May 16, 2017, Plaintiffs appealed the April 18, 2017 denial of Plaintiffs' I-130 petition to the Board of Immigration Appeals. AR 10-11. On November 19, 2019, the BIA dismissed the appeal finding that "the record indicates that the reason the beneficiary moved from his native Mexico to the United States was to be in a familiar relationship with [Plaintiff-father] and his spouse, which tends to suggest that his move to the United States was 'for the purpose of' adoption." AR 5.

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs initiated this action on May 11, 2020. (Doc. 1.) On May 27, 2014, Plaintiff-father's I-130 petition was filed on behalf of plaintiff-son. In the instant action, Plaintiffs alleges the following claims: (1) APA violations by USCIS Defendants of 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq; and (2) APA violations by BIA Defendants of 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.

Defendants now move for summary judgment on both of Plaintiffs' claims. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on these claims. (Doc. 19.) No reply was filed.

Plaintiffs concurrently move for summary judgment on all of their claims. (Doc. 16.) Defendants opposed the motion. (Doc. 18.) No reply was filed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), a court may set aside a final agency decision if it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Following this narrow standard of review, a district court is not to replace its own judgment for that of the agency. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513 (2009). The district court instead is to determine whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant facts. Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1905 (2020). Under the APA, the Court's review is limited to the administrative record. Northwest Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). The reviewing court must ensure that the agency reviewed the relevant facts and satisfactorily articulated an explanation for its determination. FCC, 556 U.S. at 513. For a court to uphold an agency decision, it must find that the evidence presented before the agency "provided a reasonable and ample basis for its decision." Northwest Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). It is an abuse of discretion if the agency acts as if "there is no evidence to support the decision or if the decision was based on an improper understanding of the law." Kazarian v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 596 F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted).

For purposes of the motions for summary judgment, the usual "genuine dispute of material fact" standard for summary judgment does not apply in an APA case. San Joaquin River Group Auth. v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1083-84 (E.D. Cal. 2011), citing Occidental Eng'g Co. v. INS, 753 F.2d 766, 769 (9th Cir.1985). Since summary judgment is restricted to an administrative record, the district court's function 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." Occidental Eng'g Co., v. INS, 753 F.2d 766, 769 (9th Cir. 1985). The district court is not to resolve any disputed facts in review of an administrative proceeding, even if there where facts in dispute before the agency. Occidental, 753 F.2d at 766. In Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S....

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Nwankwere v. UR M. Jaddou
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 7 Septiembre 2023
    ...It is up to USCIS, however, to weigh the credibility of Plaintiff's evidence against the other evidence in the record. See Stoll, 2021 WL 780309, at *15. considered the totality of the evidence, including the documents submitted by Plaintiff, and found that the evidence was insufficient to ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT