Yafai v. Cuccinelli

• Decision Date: 01 June 2020
• Docket Number: 20 Civ. 2932 (AT)
• Parties: SUAAD YAFAI, HELMI MOHAMMED ALQUTAIBI; S.A., Plaintiffs, v. KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America; CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; MICHAEL R. POMPEO, Secretary of State; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; LEE BOWLES, Acting Director of the New York District, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; SUSAN QUINTANA, Director of the New York Field Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; JOHN DOE (A.K.A. OFFICER "BAYOUMI"), Immigration Service Officer, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

SUAAD YAFAI, HELMI MOHAMMED ALQUTAIBI; S.A., Plaintiffs, v. KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI,Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES;DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America;CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary of Department of Homeland Security;U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;MICHAEL R. POMPEO, Secretary of State;U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; LEE BOWLES,Acting Director of the New York District,U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;SUSAN QUINTANA, Director of the New York Field Office,U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; JOHN DOE(A.K.A. OFFICER "BAYOUMI"), Immigration Service Officer, Defendants.

20 Civ. 2932 (AT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

June 1, 2020

ORDER

ANALISA TORRES, District Judge:

Plaintiffs, Suaad Yafai, Helmi Mohammed Alqutaibi, and Alqutaibi's minor daughter S.A., claim that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") wrongly denied applications that would grant Alqutaibi the status of a lawful permanent resident, and allow S.A. to live in the United States. Compl. ¶¶ 1-8, ECF No. 5. They seek a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants—USCIS officials, as well as the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, their respective departments, and the President of the United States—to grant their applications for adjustment of immigration status. Pl. Mem. at 17, ECF No. 7. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.¹

BACKGROUND

Yafai is a United States citizen. Yafai Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. QQ.² Her husband, Alqutaibi, is a Yemeni national, who entered the United States on a visitor visa in 2013. Alqutaibi Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. RR. Yafai and Alqutaibi married in 2016, and had a child that same year. Yafai Decl. ¶ 4; Alqutaibi Decl. ¶ 8. Alqutaibi has a daughter from a previous marriage, S.A., who currently resides in Saudi Arabia with Alqutaibi's mother. Alqutaibi Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.

In 2016, Yafai filed an I-130 petition and an I-485 petition on Alqutaibi's behalf, and an I-130 petition on S.A.'s behalf. Exs. K, L. An I-130 is a "petition for alien relative," which "results in the beneficiary of the petition being classified as an immediate relative for purposes of issuing a visa for admission to the United States." Ahmed v. Cissna, 327 F. Supp. 3d 650, 658 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), aff'd sub nom. Ahmed v. Cuccinelli, 792 F. App'x 908 (2d Cir. 2020). An I-485 is an application to register for permanent residence, and if approved grants the beneficiary the status of a lawful permanent resident. See Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721, 725 (2d Cir. 2015) ("If [an] I-485 is approved, the alien becomes a lawful permanent resident and obtains a green card."). An interview with USCIS on the petitions was scheduled for March 14, 2019 (the "March 14 Interview"). Ex. FF.

Yafai and Alqutaibi appeared for the March 14 Interview with Darilyn Octave, a junior lawyer in their attorney's office. Goldberg Decl. ¶¶ 14-16, Ex. PP. The interview was conducted by Defendant Bayoumi, whose full name Plaintiffs do not know. Compl. ¶¶ 114-115;Yafai Decl. ¶ 10; Alqutaibi Decl. ¶ 14. Julie Goldberg, Plaintiffs' primary attorney (and their counsel in this case), was out of the country at the time of the interview. Goldberg Decl. ¶ 14. According to Plaintiffs, Bayoumi stated at the outset that it would not be a "normal" interview. Yafai Decl. ¶ 11 (internal quotation marks omitted). He proceeded to "interrogat[e]" Yafai and Alqutaibi. Compl. ¶ 183. He asked Yafai and Alqutaibi if Alqutaibi ever used a different name; after they each said he did not, he asked Yafai to state Alqutaibi's full name, and when she replied "Helmi Mohammed Alqutaibi," responded, "Oh, so he does use a different name"—apparently because Alqutaibi's full name is Helmi Mohammed Nasser Alqutaibi, and Yafai had failed to say Nasser. Yafai Decl. ¶ 12; Alqutaibi Decl. ¶ 14. Plaintiffs state that Bayoumi then asked Alqutaibi "all sorts of questions that had nothing to do with our marriage or [S.A.] or the applications." Yafai Decl. ¶ 13; Alqutaibi Decl. ¶ 16 ("The officer was very aggressive and rude. He made me feel uncomfortable. He kept asking questions that seemed unusual and had nothing to do with our marriage."); see also Octave Notes, Ex. KK ("During the interview, the officer proceeded to ask the beneficiary many questions that had nothing to do with the bona fide marriage or I-485 adjudication.").

Octave, who was trained to conduct routine I-130 and I-485 interviews, believed herself to be unqualified to deal with this more searching inquiry, and requested that the interview be postponed until Goldberg was back in the country and could appear at the interview with Plaintiffs. Octave Notes; Yafai Decl. ¶ 16; Alqutaibi Decl. ¶ 20. She provided a handwritten request to Bayoumi and to his supervisor, stating:

This interview has been conducted as a fact-finding mission and not as a routine adjudication. I have a duty under the code of professional responsibility to competently advocate for and represent my client. Given the fact that this interview has gone outside the scope of a typical I-130/I-485 interview, I do not feel comfortable that I can competently represent the client. Therefore, I am asking that the interview be rescheduled at a time when Ms. Julie Goldberg, theprimary attorney on this case, can do the interview. If this interview is terminated in violation of my client's rights, we will file a federal lawsuit. If an attorney states that he/she cannot competently continue a hearing or interview, the client has a right to counsel under 5 U.S.C. [§] 555(b) and that needs to be respected. Ms. Julie Goldberg will be back from Africa in April and if the interview is scheduled around this time she will be able to accompany the client.

Had this been a normal/routine I-130/I-485, I would have been comfortable representing the client throughout the duration of the interview. However, the interview went outside the scope of the I-130/I-485 and we had no notice that USCIS intended on interrogating the client. Given these facts, we respectfully request that the interview be rescheduled so that the client can be represented by competent counsel as is their right by law.

Ex. JJ. According to Plaintiffs, the USCIS officials informed them that they would receive a decision on their request to reschedule within two weeks. Yafai Decl. ¶ 16; Alqutaibi Decl. ¶ 20; Octave Notes.

On June 10, 2019, USCIS issued decisions denying the petitions. Alqutaibi I-130 Decision, Ex. LL; Alqutaibi I-485 Decision, Ex. MM; S.A. I-130 Decision, Ex. NN. The decisions informed Yafai that because Octave had entered an appearance as her attorney, and neither Yafai nor her attorney had asked to reschedule the interview in advance, she "ha[d] not submitted a valid reason to reschedule your interview." Alqutaibi I-130 Decision at 2.³ Moreover, the decision stated that "[b]y terminating the interview and failing to provide the required testimony, you cut off material lines of inquiry regarding your divorce from your first husband, information about [Alqutaibi's] first divorce, information about [Alqutaibi's] second divorce and his marital history, [and] information about [Alqutaibi's] daughter." Id. This conduct "prevent[ed] USCIS from being able to determine if you meet all the eligibility requirements to classify the beneficiary as your spouse." Id. The decision concluded, "Based onthe fact that you terminated the interview prior to its conclusion, you have failed to establish your eligibility and your Form I-130 is considered abandoned and is denied." Id.

ANALYSIS

I. Legal Standard

"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To obtain a preliminary injunction against government action taken pursuant to a statute or regulatory scheme the moving party must "demonstrate (1) irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, (2) a likelihood of success on the merits, and (3) public interest weighing in favor of granting the injunction." Friends of the E. Hampton Airport, Inc. v. Town of E. Hampton, 841 F.3d 133, 143 (2d Cir. 2016).

Movants are held to a "heightened standard where: (i) an injunction is mandatory"—in other words, it seeks a change to the status quo, as opposed to a prohibitory preliminary injunction that merely maintains the status quo—"or (ii) the injunction will provide the movant with substantially all the relief sought and that relief cannot be undone even if the defendant prevails at a trial on the merits." New York ex rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis PLC, 787 F.3d 638, 650 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To obtain an injunction in those circumstances, "the movant must show a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and make a strong showing of irreparable harm." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Plaintiffs here are pursuing a mandatory injunction. They ask the Court to alter the status quo by ordering Defendants to reverse their decision to deny Plaintiffs' I-130 applications, and to vacate the denial of their I-485 application. Pl. Mem. at 17. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must show aclear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and make a strong showing of irreparable harm.

II. Application

A. Irreparable Harm

To demonstrate irreparable harm, a plaintiff must show that an "actual and imminent" injury will occur that "cannot be remedied if a court waits until the end of trial to resolve the harm." Singas Famous Pizza Brands Corp. v. New York Advertising LLC, 468 F. App'x 43, 45 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "When an alleged deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary." Mitchell v. Cuomo, 748 F.2d 804, 806 (2d...