Faiza Ambreen, et al. v. Merrick Garland

Alexandria, Virginia immigration lawyer represented the Plaintiff.

This action involves a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA”) seeking review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA”). Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 5) and Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 12). Because the BIA's decision upholding the denial of Plaintiffs' I-130 petition was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, the Court will grant Plaintiffs' motion and deny Defendants' motion.





To gain the right to be lawfully present in the United States, a person who is already in the United States may seek an adjustment of his status to that of a permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151-1154. One pathway to permanent residency is through a spouse or other immediate family member who is a United States citizen. Id. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i). The first step on this path is for the citizen spouse to file a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to classify the non-citizen as a spouse. See Moore v. Frazier, 941 F.3d 717, 719-720 (4th Cir. 2019). After an I-130 petition is granted, the non-citizen spouse must

show that he is admissible as a permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1182, and that he is eligible to adjust status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).



It is an I-130 petitioner's burden to "establish . . . the claimed relationship of the petitioner to the beneficiary . . . in the form of primary evidence, if available.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(f)(1). "A petition submitted on behalf of a spouse must be accompanied by . . . a certificate of marriage issued by civil authorities, and proof of the legal termination of all previous marriages of both the petitioner and the beneficiary.” Id. § 204.1(a)(2). The validity of a marriage-including where its validity turns on an earlier divorce-is determined by the law of the state where the marriage was celebrated. Adjei v. Mayorkas, 59 F.4th 659, 664 (4th Cir. 2023) (citing Jahed v. Acri, 468 F.3d 230, 235 (4th Cir. 2006)); see also Matter of Arenas, 15 I. & N. Dec. 174, 174-175 (BIA 1975).



* * *





USCIS's task in considering an I-130 petition is simple: to determine, based on the evidence submitted and "an investigation of the facts in each case,” whether "the alien on behalf of whom the petition is made is an immediate relative” of the citizen petitioner. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b). In this case, that means USCIS simply needed to determine whether Plaintiffs were lawfully married. That depends on the validity of their purported marriage, which, in turn, depends in part on whether all prior marriages were terminated before their marriage.



In a decision affirmed by the BIA, USCIS determined (1) that Imran's 2017 marriage to Ambreen was invalid because he listed an incorrect name and date of birth, (2) that his 2017 divorce was invalid on the same grounds, and (3) that his 1988 divorce could not be found to bevalid because it listed a different name. Any of these three bases would be sufficient to sustain the BIA's decision. Defs.' MSJ 17 (citing Singh v. Garland, 6 F4th 418, 427 (2d Cir. 2021)). But because the BIA did not provide reasoned and reasonable explanations for upholding any one of the three, its decision was arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

Reversed