Zizi v. Bausman
| Decision Date | 29 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION No. 17-1976 |
| Parties | MOHAMMED ZAKARIA ZIZI et al., Plaintiffs, v. KATHLEEN BAUSMAN et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
AMENDED MEMORANDUM
Are there adequate protections for American citizens petitioning for citizenship on behalf of their alien spouses? And if there are, did the Government violate those legal protections here? The plaintiffs, Kristine Bruno and her husband Mohammed Zizi, challenge a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) final decision denying Ms. Bruno's I-130 petition for citizenship on behalf of Mr. Zizi. The Board denied the petition because it found that Mr. Zizi had previously entered into a fraudulent marriage. Mr. Zizi challenges this final agency action, arguing that it runs afoul of both due process and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The Court finds Mr. Zizi's claims without merit and grants summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Necessarily, the Court's role is limited when reviewing agency action, and here, within that limited role, the Court finds that the agency properly reviewed the evidence before it, made a reasoned and reasonable determination, and adhered to at least the minimum demands of the APA and due process.
The facts presented are as follows: The plaintiffs are Mohammed Zizi, an alien, and Kristine Bruno, an American citizen. Mr. Zizi entered the United States in 2001. He married his first wife, Michelle Crozier, in May 2005. Eight months after they married, Ms. Crozier filed an I-130 "Petition for Alien Relative" form1 on behalf of Mr. Zizi for his permanent residency. This petition, if approved, would have allowed Mr. Zizi to become a permanent resident of the United States because of his marriage to Ms. Crozier, but it was never approved. The form was disapproved because Ms. Crozier failed to appear for her required interview, and she never appealed that decision.
Mr. Zizi and Ms. Crozier divorced after less than a year of marriage. Fifty (50) days after his divorce with Ms. Crozier, Mr. Zizi married her cousin and his current wife, Ms. Bruno.2 Shortly thereafter, Ms. Bruno filed a new I-130 petition (the subject of this litigation) on behalf of Mr. Zizi. The United States Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) director denied the petition in September 2009, and the plaintiffs appealed. Upon review, the Board remanded the case to the USCIS director for failure to consider all of the evidence, and in September 2016, the USCIS director denied the petition again. The Board affirmed the USCIS director's decision. This action followed.
The USCIS director and BIA denied Ms. Bruno's I-130 request because they determined that Mr. Zizi had previously entered into a sham marriage with her cousin, Ms. Crozier. "[N]o [I-130] petition shall be approved if (1) the alien has previously been accorded or has sought to be accorded, an immediate relative or preference status as the spouse of a citizen of the United States [if that marriage was] entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws." 8U.S.C. § 1154(c). The Board had found that Mr. Zizi's previous marriage, the brief one to Ms. Crozier, was fraudulent. Hence, the Board denied Ms. Bruno's I-130 petition.
The Board based its denial in large part on Ms. Crozier's sworn testimony to USCIS agents where she admitted: Ms. Crozier admitted that they never consummated the relationship; they maintained separate residences; and they both were involved with intimate relationships with other people during the ostensible marriage. However, she recanted these statements and the information contained in them during Mr. Zizi's pursuit of this I-130 petition, apparently for two reasons. First, she stated that her statement was coerced because she was afraid that she was liable for assisting Mr. Zizi's alleged fraud. Second, she claims she was on antidepressants when she gave the testimony. The USCIS director and BIA weighed this evidence but ultimately found it unavailing. In a twelve-page single-spaced decision, the director outlined the evidence, weighed the relative merits of it, and found that Mr. Zizi's previous marriage was a sham. Accordingly, the director denied the I-130 petition. The Board also considered the USCIS director's opinion and affirmed it in a two-page opinion outlining the relevant considerations.
Mr. Zizi filed a complaint in federal court, asserting that the decision violated due process and was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. The Government moved for summary judgment based on the administrative record, and Mr. Zizi cross-moved for summary judgment.
Although "summary judgment is the proper mechanism for deciding, as a matter of law, whether an agency's action is supported by the administrative record" the district court is acting as an appellate tribunal, and "the usual summary judgment standard does not apply." Dorley v.Cardinale, 119 F. Supp. 3d 345, 351 (E.D. Pa. 2015); see also Uddin v. Mayorkas, 862 F. Supp. 2d 391, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2012).
Review of final agency action is sharply limited. Under the APA, a district court may only set aside agency action if it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). This standard has two different categories. The first, "arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion" looks at the reasoning the agency employed in coming to its decision. See Mirjan v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 494 F. App'x. 248, 250 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Donovan v. Adams Steel Erection, Inc., 766 F.2d 804, 807 (3d Cir. 1985)). The second avenue for relief is if an agency's decision is "otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). This prevents agencies from making decisions that, although well-reasoned, violate other statutory or regulatory strictures.
"In applying that standard, the focal point for judicial review should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court." Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973). The scope of review under this standard is narrow and a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42, 52 (2011); see also Guzman v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 770 F.3d 1077, 1087 (3d Cir. 2014). An agency is only required to "articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a 'rational connection between the facts found and the choice made'" for its action to be upheld. CBS Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 663 F.3d 122, 137 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)).
Final agency action is arbitrary and capricious where "'the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion but compels it.'" Sheng v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 365 F. App'x. 408, 410 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 483-84 (3d Cir. 2001))."Reversal is appropriate only where the administrative action is irrational or not based on relevant factors." NVE, Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs, 436 F.3d 182, 190 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43). In determining whether an agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously, a district court must examine "whether the agency relied on factors outside those Congress intended for consideration, completely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or provided an explanation that is contrary to, or implausible in light of, the evidence." Id. Such an evaluation must be restricted to reasons articulated by the agency itself at the time of the decision, not merely post hoc rationales developed during litigation. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 50.
Mr. Zizi advances four main arguments in support of his claim for relief.3 First, he argues that the government failed to disclose derogatory information, which violates both the CFR and agency procedures. Second, he claims that the procedures here violated the Due Process Clause. Third, he argues that the Board applied the incorrect standard in denying the petition. Finally, he argues that the decision was generally arbitrary and capricious.
The first argument that Mr. Zizi makes is that the agency failed to disclose necessary information, which violates 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16) and various agency procedures. He makes this argument in two respects. First, he claims that the record here is incomplete. Second, he claims that he was not given full access to the record to defend his appeal.
Mr. Zizi first claims that the administrative record is incomplete. In support, he points to redactions in the record, then to the USCIS director's reliance on interviews that were not recorded. Mr. Zizi asserts that this must mean that the decision is arbitrary and capricious because the record analyzed by the agency was incomplete. Neither of his arguments have merit.
Mr. Zizi first argues that there are redactions that indicate an incomplete record. Mr. Zizi does not point to any law that prohibits such redactions, but simply maintains that the extent of the redactions means that the agency has not reviewed the full record. Given that the agency must articulate a "rational connection between the facts found and the choice made" State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, Mr. Zizi argues that an incomplete record means that the agency's decision must be arbitrary and capricious.
The Court disagrees. The redactions complained of are minimal. They consist mostly of names, addresses, policy numbers and contact information redacted by the United States Attorney's Office to comply with federal and local rules...
To continue reading
Request your trial