Zina v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 12 January 2023
• Docket Number: 21-cv-2299 (WMW/DTS)
• Parties: Yamah Sackie Zina, Plaintiff, v. Terri Robinson, Ur Jaddou, Alejandro Mayorkas and Merrick Garland, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

Yamah Sackie Zina, Plaintiff,
v.
Terri Robinson, Ur Jaddou, Alejandro Mayorkas and Merrick Garland, Defendants.

No. 21-cv-2299 (WMW/DTS)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

January 12, 2023

ORDER

Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking judicial review of the denial of an immigrant visa petition. Defendants now move to dismiss and the parties cross-move for summary judgment. (Dkts. 30, 35.) For the reasons addressed below, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denies Defendants' motion to dismiss and grants Defendants' alternative motion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Yamah Sackie Zina is a United States citizen who resides in Minnesota. Defendant Terri Robinson is the Director of the National Benefits Center, which is an office of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that receives and processes immigration visa applications and petitions. Defendant Ur Jaddou is the Director of USCIS. Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas is the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is the federal agency that administers and enforces federal immigration laws. Defendant Merrick Garland is the United States Attorney General.

1

Zina, who was born in Liberia, immigrated to the United States in 2010. Zina's cousin, who currently resides in Liberia, gave birth to Marie Zina in or around 2005. Marie was not issued a birth certificate at the time of her birth. Zina assisted in caring for Marie in Liberia after Marie's father died in November 2007. When Zina immigrated to the United States in 2010, she left Marie in the physical care of others but continued to support Marie financially.

In January 2016, Zina became a naturalized United States citizen. Shortly thereafter, Zina adopted Marie through the Liberian court system. Zina's adoption of Marie was finalized in September 2016. Currently, Marie resides in Liberia with Zina's sister-in-law, who agreed to care for Marie until Marie is permitted to join Zina in the United States.

In February 2020, Zina filed a Form I-130 petition to classify Marie as a relative of a United States citizen for the purpose of obtaining an immigrant visa. Zina's I-130 petition included, among other documents, a copy of the September 2016 adoption decree, Marie's baptism and birth certificates, an affidavit from Marie's biological mother detailing the circumstances of Marie's birth and adoption and letters of attestation from Marie's school and medical provider.

On February 19, 2021, USCIS provided Zina with a notice of intent to deny her I-130 petition. The notice advised Zina that her I-130 petition included insufficient evidence of Marie's identity, Zina's full and final adoption of Marie, two years of legal custody of Marie and two years of joint residence with Marie. With respect to Marie's identity, USCIS advised Zina that, because Marie's birth certificate was registered more

2

than 13 years after Marie's alleged date of birth, “additional information and evidence are required regarding [Marie's] birth.” USCIS's notice also cites the Department of State's Foreign Affairs Manual and explains that, “[i]f the child's birth certificate was untimely registered, procedurally not within one year of the birth, secondary evidence is also required.” With respect to the joint-residence requirement, USCIS's notice requests “evidence that you and the child resided in joint residence at the same address for at least two years, before or after the adoption and before you filed this Form I-130.”

Zina responded on May 19, 2021, and provided supplemental evidence. With respect to Marie's identity, Zina asserted through counsel that the reason for the delayed issuance of Marie's birth certificate is because Marie's birth occurred shortly after a civil war that impacted Liberia's governmental operations. With respect to the joint-residence requirement, Zina reasserted her previous arguments and emphasized the evidence she had previously submitted. Zina also provided supplemental evidence as to Marie's identity and the joint-residence requirement, including photographs, an affidavit from Zina and written statements from Marie's biological mother, two uncles of Marie's biological parents and Zina's former neighbor in Liberia.

On June 11, 2021, USCIS provided Zina with a second notice of intent to deny her I-130 petition. The second notice advised Zina that the I-130 petition continued to lack sufficient evidence of Marie's identity and joint residence with Zina. USCIS's second notice included the following statement regarding Zina's evidence of Marie's identity:

You submitted a copy of [Marie's] birth certificate that was registered over 13 years after [Marie's] birth. Your attorney states that [Marie] does not have a timely-registered birth

3

certificate due to disorder after the Liberian civil war However, you did not submit a written statement from a relevant authority on government letterhead that establishes why a timely registered birth certificate for [Marie] is not available. As such, additional information and evidence are required regarding [Marie's] birth.

As to the joint-residence requirement, USCIS observed that Zina had provided insufficient evidence to prove that she resided with Marie from November 2007 until September 2010, when Zina moved to the United States. USCIS noted that Zina's supplemental evidence-namely, school, baptismal, medical and financial records-all pertains to time periods after Zina had immigrated to the United States and, therefore, cannot corroborate Zina's joint residence with Marie prior to September 2010. USCIS directed Zina to “[s]ubmit evidence that you and [Marie] resided in joint residence at the same address for at least two years, before or after the adoption and before [Zina] filed this Form I-130,” observing that joint residence may be counted in the aggregate but that “mere visits with the child do not count toward the joint residence requirement.” USCIS advised Zina that evidence of joint residence may include rental documentation, school records demonstrating a joint residential address, income tax returns reflecting Marie as a dependent, medical records showing Zina as the responsible party or insurance policies of Zina's under which Marie was covered.

On July 3, 2021, Zina responded to USCIS's second notice of intent to deny her I-130 petition. As to Marie's birth certificate, Zina reasserted her prior arguments and emphasized the affidavits and corroborating evidence she previously submitted. Zina also included a report prepared in 2017 by the Immigration and Refugee Board of

4

Canada, which reflects that the low birth-registration rate in Liberia has been impacted by regional and gender disparities. As to the joint-residence requirement, Zina reasserted her prior arguments and emphasized the evidence she previously submitted.

Following a third notice of intent to deny, USCIS formally denied Zina's I-130 petition on August 25, 2021. The denial notice concludes that Zina failed to demonstrate Marie's eligibility for classification as an immediate relative of a United States citizen because Zina had provided insufficient evidence of Marie's identity and joint residence with Zina. The denial notice also advises Zina that, within 30 days, she may appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) or submit a motion to USCIS to reopen or reconsider the decision. Zina did not file an appeal with the BIA or a motion to reconsider with USCIS.

Zina commenced this action on October 17, 2021, seeking judicial review of the denial of her I-130 petition. Zina alleges that Defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by unreasonably and arbitrarily rejecting her I-130 petition. The parties now cross-move for summary judgment. In the alternative, Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

ANALYSIS

I. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

As a threshold matter, Defendants argue that Zina's complaint should be dismissed because this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. According to Defendants, Zina failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and should have filed an appeal with the BIA or a motion to reconsider with USCIS before seeking judicial review.

5

This Court has jurisdiction to review Defendants' denial of an immigration petition under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., which provides for judicial review of agency action. See Coteau Props. Co. v. Dep't of Interior, 53 F.3d 1466, 1471 (8th Cir. 1995); Svelte Constr., LLC v. Baran, 368 F.Supp.3d 1301, 1306-09 (D. Minn. 2019) (reviewing USCIS's denial of petition for nonimmigrant visa under APA). Defendants correctly observe that, before seeking judicial review of an administrative agency's decision, an individual typically must exhaust all administrative remedies. McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992) superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006). However, when the APA applies, exhaustion of administrative remedies “is a prerequisite to judicial review only when expressly required by statute or when an agency rule requires appeal before review and the administrative action is made inoperative pending that review.” Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137, 154 (1993); accord Coteau Props., 53 F.3d at 1471.

Here, Defendants concede that Zina was not required, by statute or agency rule, to administratively appeal the denial of her I-130 petition before seeking judicial review. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(1)(ii) (providing that a petitioner “may” appeal to the BIA), 1003.1(b) (providing for circumstances in which an appeal “may” be filed with the BIA). Indeed, Defendants' notices of denial to Zina advised her that she “may” appeal the decision to...