ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge.
Over ten years ago, Plaintiff Jolly Manoj Caplash ("Plaintiff") filed a Form I-130 family-based immigration petition on behalf of his brother with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS"). Plaintiff later relocated and did not update his address with USCIS. As a result, he did not receive USCIS's request for evidence and notice of the denial of the petition until nearly three years after-the-fact. He filed two motions to reopen his petition, both of which were denied as untimely.
Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (the "APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, 701-706, against the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Director of USCIS, the Director of the USCIS Nebraska Service Center, and the Attorney General of the United States (collectively, "Defendants") and asks this Court to set aside
Because Plaintiff was deprived of due process by Defendants' decision to deny his Form I-130 petition, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part (Dkt. 18) and remands the case to USCIS with directions that Plaintiff's priority date be restored, Plaintiff be provided with a reasonable opportunity to provide the additional evidence requested by USCIS, and USCIS re-adjudicate Plaintiff's Form I-130 petition in accordance with this Decision and Order.
The following facts are undisputed and drawn from the parties' Rule 56 Statements of Fact unless otherwise noted.
Plaintiff, born Manoj Kaplash, changed his name to Jolly Manoj Caplash upon his naturalization as a United States citizen on February 20, 2003. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 1; Dkt. 21-2 at 1). On or about March 10, 2004, while residing in Gaithersburg, Maryland, Plaintiff filed a Form I-130 family-based immigration petition with USCIS on behalf of his brother, Rupinder Kaplash.
Plaintiff and Defendants dispute whether the Form I-797 informed Plaintiff of the need to update USCIS regarding changes in his address. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 5; Dkt. 21-2 at 1-2). The form stated: "The above application or petition has been received. It normally takes 150 to 999 days from the date of this receipt for us to process this type of case. Please notify us immediately if any of the above information is incorrect." (Administrative Transcript (hereinafter "Tr.") 10, 181).
Plaintiff relocated to Rochester, New York in July 2005, where he accepted a position as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 6; Dkt. 21-2 at 2). He changed his address with the United States Postal Service (the "USPS"), believing that this action would sufficiently notify the federal government, including USCIS, of his new address. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 7; Dkt. 21-2 at 2). When Plaintiff filed the Form I-130 petition in 2004, he knew that there was a substantial waiting period for family-based, fourth-preference immigrant visas and that it would probably take many years, even a decade, before such a visa would become available for his brother. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 8; Dkt. 21-2 at 2). Thus, he was not surprised when he did not receive communication from USCIS regarding the petition. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 8; Dkt. 21-2 at 2). Plaintiff filed federal tax returns each year, listing his current mailing address, and his oral surgery practice website listed his name, telephone number, office address, fax number, and email address. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶¶ 9-10; Dkt. 21-2 at 2).
Plaintiff, through his attorney, submitted a Form G-639 Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request on May 14, 2013, to learn more about the status of the case, requesting copies of materials relating to his 2004 Form I-130 petition. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 14; Dkt. 21-2 at 2). On May 28, 2013, the USCIS National Records Center denied the FOIA request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) by letter, stating that Plaintiff's request constituted an unwarranted invasion of his brother's personal privacy. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 15; Dkt. 21-2 at 2). On June 10, 2013, Plaintiff renewed his FOIA request by letter, stating that he was requesting copies only of records relating to the petition that he had filed himself and was not seeking to invade his brother's personal privacy. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 16; Dkt. 21-2 at 2). On June 19, 2013, the USCIS National Records Center denied Plaintiff's second FOIA request under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), stating that the FOIA request constituted an unwarranted invasion of Plaintiff's brother's privacy. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 17; Dkt. 21-2 at 2).
After several unsuccessful attempts, Plaintiff's attorney was able to speak with a USCIS officer on July 16, 2013, regarding the I-130 petition and to update the address on file and resolve any other issues. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 18; Dkt. 21-2 at 2). Following this call, an email notice from USCIS on July 19, 2013, provided Plaintiff with his first notice that USCIS had denied his Form I-130 petition nearly three years earlier, on August 20, 2010. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 18; Dkt. 21-2 at 2).
On August 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed a third FOIA request, including notarized letters from his brother and himself, authorizing the release of the case file. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 19; Dkt. 21-2 at 2). On August 9, 2013, already aware that USCIS had denied his petition but prior to receipt of the case file, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen and reconsider the denial of his I-130 petition. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 20; Dkt. 21-2 at 2; Tr. 176). In the motion, Plaintiff explained that he had not received any notices or correspondences in the case and, when he first learned through the USCIS website that a notice had been returned as undeliverable, he immediately took action to determine the nature of the returned notice and status of the case. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 20; Dkt. 21-2 at 2).
On August 15, 2013, the USCIS National Records Center denied Plaintiff's third FOIA request by letter for lack of verification of identity in the form of a letter stating the full name, current address, and
The FOIA case file included a July 17, 2009 notice from USCIS of the transfer of Plaintiff's case to the Nebraska Service Center; the notice had been mailed to Plaintiff's previous address in Maryland and returned to USCIS as undeliverable. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 24; Dkt. 21-2 at 2). The returned mail stated in handwriting, "Moved out at least 10 months ago (if he/she ever lived here)." (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 24; Dkt. 21-2 at 2). The case file also included a June 24, 2010 Request for Evidence ("RFE") letter, which had also been mailed to Plaintiff's Maryland address and returned with a handwritten note stating, "moved years ago." (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 25; Dkt. 21-2 at 2). This RFE letter in the case file indicated that the "documentation submitted is not sufficient to warrant favorable consideration of the petition" and instructed the reader to "see Attachment for Details," though the letter in the case file contained no such attachment.
Plaintiff made three attempts to update his pending motion to reopen and reconsider to include the case file materials received through the FOIA request, by letters dated December 20, 2013, December 23, 2013, and January 13, 2014. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 28; Dkt. 21-2 at 2). USCIS denied Plaintiff's motion to reopen and reconsider his I-130 petition by letter dated January 14, 2015, stating that the motion to reopen was untimely because it was not made within 30 days of the denial and because Plaintiff gave no excusable reason for the delay. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 29; Dkt. 21-2 at 2). Plaintiff filed a new motion to reopen on or about February 13, 2015, which included materials from the FOIA case file and noted that the RFE letter in the FOIA materials failed to specify any deficiency in the originally submitted evidence. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 30; Dkt. 21-2 at 2). USCIS denied
The administrative record shows no attempt by USCIS to locate Plaintiff before denying his petition, though it does show that USCIS updated its case status website with information about the mail returned from Plaintiff's Maryland address by at least April 2, 2013. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶¶ 12, 33; Dkt. 21-2 at 2; Tr. 186). Ultimately, USCIS denied Plaintiff's I-130 petition based on his failure to respond to correspondence that USCIS knew he had never received. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 34; Dkt. 21-2 at 2).
On December 29, 2015, Plaintiff commenced this proceeding. (Dkt. 1). The administrative record was filed on April 28, 2016 (Dkt. 14), and Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on June 9, 2016 (Dkt. 18). Defendants moved for summary judgment on July 7, 2016 (Dkt. 21), and Plaintiff and Defendants each responded on July 21, 2016, and July 28, 2016, respectively (Dkt. 22; Dkt. 23). Oral argument was held before the undersigned on October 28, 2016, and Plaintiff provided a supplemental submission on November 28, 2016 (Dkt. 26), with Defendants following suit on November 29, 2016 (Dkt. 27).
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment should be granted if the moving party establishes "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court should grant summary judgment if, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the court finds that no rational jury could find in favor of that party. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). Once the moving party has met its burden, the opposing party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.... [T]he nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Caldarola v. Calabrese, 298 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (quoting Matsushita Elec., 475 U.S. at 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment...." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (emphasis in original). Here, both parties agree that there is no dispute as to the material facts and that summary judgment is appropriate — but they disagree as to the legal conclusions that this Court should reach based on those undisputed material facts.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (the "INA") specifies:
Li v. Renaud, 654 F.3d 376, 377 (2d Cir. 2011). While the numerical limitations relating to the country or worldwide number of visas granted per year do not apply to children under the age of 21,
A family sponsor who is either a United States citizen or a lawful permanent resident may file a petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1) on behalf of an alien relative, and USCIS will assess the petition to determine whether the alien on behalf of whom the petition is made is eligible for preference. See 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1). If so, USCIS "shall ... approve the petition." 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b). This approval "does not automatically cause the agency to issue a visa or grant permanent lawful resident status to the beneficiary; instead, the beneficiary receives a place in line to wait for a visa." Li, 654 F.3d at 378. These visas are issued on a first-come-first-served basis within the preference groups based on the date that the petition was filed (the "priority date"). Id. It is not uncommon for immigrants from countries where family-sponsored petitions far exceed the numerical limitations, to wait a decade or more to receive a visa after USCIS grants the petition. Id.
If a petition is denied due to abandonment, such a denial may not be appealed, but the petitioner may file a motion to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(15). Such a denial does not preclude the petitioner from filing a new benefit request with a new fee, but the priority date of the abandoned benefit request may not be applied to the new application. See id. In other words, if a petition is deemed abandoned, the petitioner loses his place in line.
The APA provides that "[a]gency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review," 5 U.S.C. § 704, and gives standing to any "person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely
[T]he reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.... The reviewing court shall ... hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be — (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; [or] (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity....
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(B). "In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error." 5 U.S.C. § 706. "In reviewing an agency's disposition of constitutional issues, a district court need not defer to the agency's decision; in fact, it must engage in a de novo review." Sanders v. Szubin, 828 F.Supp.2d 542, 548 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Cablevision Sys. Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 570 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir. 2009)). However, when reviewing an action under the arbitrary and capricious standard of § 706(2)(A), "the review is deferential and, although a reviewing court `must hold unlawful and set aside any agency action found to be arbitrary [and] capricious, ...' the scope of this review is `narrow,' ... and courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the agency under review." Id. (quoting Karpova v. Snow, 497 F.3d 262, 267 (2d Cir. 2007)) (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983)).
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. V. "[P]roperty interests protected by procedural due process extend well beyond actual ownership of real estate, chattels, or money"; however:
Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 571-72, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Property interests are created not by the Constitution, but by "existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law — rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits." Id. at 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701. The Supreme Court has recognized that "a benefit is not a protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion." Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 756, 125 S.Ct. 2796,
The Second Circuit has held in the land-use benefit context that an entitlement to a benefit exists where, "absent the alleged denial of due process, there is either a certainty or a very strong likelihood that the application would have been granted," Yale Auto Parts, Inc. v. Johnson, 758 F.2d 54, 59 (2d Cir. 1985), due to the "degree of discretion enjoyed by the issuing authority, not the estimated probability that the authority will act favorably in a particular case." RRI Realty Corp. v. Inc. Vill. of Southampton, 870 F.2d 911, 918 (2d Cir. 1989). Thus, even if the probability of an authority acting favorably in a specific case is objectively high, "the opportunity of the local agency to deny [the benefit] suffices to defeat the existence of a federally protected property interest," id. and the "`strong likelihood' aspect of Yale Auto Parts comes into play only when the discretion of the issuing agency is so narrowly circumscribed that approval of a proper application is virtually assured." Id. The Second Circuit has since "consistently reaffirmed that [the] inquiry `focuses on the extent to which the deciding authority may exercise discretion in arriving at a decision, rather than on an estimate of the probability that the authority will make a specific decision.'" Clubside, Inc. v. Valentin, 468 F.3d 144, 153 (2d Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original) (quoting Zahra v. Town of Southold, 48 F.3d 674, 680 (2d Cir. 1995)). Discretion turns on whether the authority "is required to [grant the benefit] upon ascertainment that certain objectively ascertainable criteria have been met." Natale v. Town of Ridgefield, 170 F.3d 258, 263 (2d Cir. 1999).
This analysis has been applied in contexts outside of real property in determining whether a property interest derives from certain laws. See, e.g., Elliot v. City of N.Y., No. 06-CV-296 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178187, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008) (applying the above analysis to a substantive due process claim where the defendant implemented a reservoir and dam policy allegedly in violation of an existing regulation). In fact, the Ninth Circuit has considered and implemented this analysis specifically in the context presented by this case: Form I-130 petitions.
Id. (emphasis added).
In other words, as held by the Ninth Circuit, the language in the statute does not leave room for discretion. The Secretary of DHS must approve the petition if: (1) the facts in the petition are true; and (2) the alien on behalf of whom the petition is made is an immediate relative or a relative in one of the four preference categories. The Ninth Circuit explained that, while there are eligibility requirements, "[v]irtually no government benefit is available to individuals without a requirement that certain conditions are met," thus warning against confusing eligibility requirements with discretion. Id.
The Ching decision relies on Supreme Court precedent, and Ninth Circuit precedent that closely tracks Second Circuit precedent. Thus, although there does not appear to be any case law in the Second Circuit directly addressing this issue,
Because a property interest attaches to the adjudication of Plaintiff's Form I-130, the Court need not reach whether Plaintiff has a family-based liberty interest in the Form I-130 petition, in order to conclude that procedural due process protections apply.
The Supreme Court has stated that "[a]n elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 S.Ct. 865 (1950). While the efforts employed to give notice need not be "heroic," Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 170, 122 S.Ct. 694, 151 L.Ed.2d 597 (2002), "[t]he means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it." Mullane, 339 U.S. at 315, 70 S.Ct. 652. "The proper inquiry is whether the state acted reasonably in selecting means likely to inform persons affected, not whether each property owner actually received notice." Weigner v. City of N.Y., 852 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir. 1988). "The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that notice by first-class mail is sufficient, notwithstanding the Court's obvious awareness that not every first-class letter is received by the addressee." Id. at 651 (citing Mullane, 339 U.S. at 319, 70 S.Ct. 652). This case presents the question of whether such notice by mail was
The Supreme Court addressed a similar question in Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 126 S.Ct. 1708, 164 L.Ed.2d 415 (2006), when it decided whether the State of Arkansas afforded constitutionally sufficient notice to a taxpayer of the tax foreclosure on his home where notices of tax deficiency and forfeiture of the property were mailed to the taxpayer through certified mail, but returned as "unclaimed." Id. at 223-24, 126 S.Ct. 1708. The Court noted that in previous cases in which notice was found sufficient, the government, in attempting to provide the notice, had "heard nothing back indicating that anything had gone awry." Id. at 226, 126 S.Ct. 1708; see e.g., United States v. Jackson, No. 12 CR 10 DAB, 2012 WL 6641528, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2012) (holding that, where the "[g]overnment had no reason to suspect that the notification had not been delivered to Defendant" and "the notice was addressed to the correct apartment number," "notice was reasonable and reasonably calculated to inform Defendant of his deportation hearing"). By contrast, the Court in Jones addressed "whether due process entails further responsibility when the government becomes aware prior to the taking that its attempt at notice has failed," 547 U.S. at 227, 126 S.Ct. 1708, and found that "a person who actually desired to inform a real property owner of an impending tax sale of a house he owns" would not take no action upon the return of a certified letter as unclaimed. Id. at 229, 126 S.Ct. 1708. Under the circumstances, "the State [could] not simply ignore that information," id. at 237, 126 S.Ct. 1708, and was required to "take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his property, if it [was] practicable to do so." Id. at 240, 126 S.Ct. 1708. The Court did not define what constitutes "additional reasonable steps," but rather found that such steps under the specific facts before it could include notice by regular mail, posting a notice on the front door, or addressing the notice to the "occupant." Id. Additionally, despite an explicit statutory obligation requiring the plaintiff to keep his address updated, the Court found that the plaintiff had not "forfeit[ed] his right to constitutionally sufficient notice" through his noncompliance. Id. at 232, 126 S.Ct. 1708 (citing Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 799, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983) ("[A] party's ability to take steps to safeguard its interests does not relieve the State of its constitutional obligation.")).
Jones has been applied in a variety of circumstances outside of the property forfeiture context. See Echavarria v. Pitts, 641 F.3d 92, 95 n.2 (5th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases).
Defendants argue that the line "[p]lease notify us immediately if any of the above information is incorrect" in the I-797 notice of receipt categorically required Plaintiff to keep his address with USCIS updated, obviating its need to take any additional steps to locate Plaintiff since Plaintiff failed to fulfill his obligation. (Dkt. 21-1 at 14-16). However, it is ambiguous at best whether this language meant simply to correct any then-incorrect information or created an obligation to update the information if it became incorrect in the future.
Even assuming arguendo that the line in question was a directive to Plaintiff to keep his address updated with USCIS, Defendants would not be automatically relieved of their due process obligations to Plaintiff under Jones. See Jones, 547 U.S. at 231-32, 126 S.Ct. 1708 (holding that the plaintiff's failure to comply with his statutory obligation to update his address did not relieve the government of its constitutional obligation to provide adequate notice).
The remaining questions then, are whether Defendants took additional steps and, if so, were they reasonably calculated to apprise Plaintiff of the action being taken and afford him an opportunity to present his objections.
Here, Defendants posted a notice to the USCIS website stating, "On September 3, 2010, the post office returned the notice we last sent you on this case.... This may have serious effects on processing this case," in addition to posting a phone number to call to update the address. (Tr. 186). While this could arguably be considered an "additional step," it was not reasonably calculated to apprise Plaintiff of the pendency of the action. Defendants sent to
Even if the notice of returned mail had been posted on the USCIS website before the petition was denied, "notice by publication is not sufficient with respect to an individual whose name and address are known or easily ascertainable."
While the Court does not rule on what additional steps categorically would or would not have fulfilled this obligation, an inquiry to the USPS, as suggested by Plaintiff, under 39 C.F.R. § 265.6(d)(5)(i)
725 F.3d at 1156. Thus, Defendants might have fulfilled their due process obligation had they contacted the USPS regardless of whether the USPS maintained Plaintiff's
Finally, Defendants argue that Jones stands for the proposition that "[e]ven when the government has initiated proceedings to seize a person's property, it is not required to search in a directory for the property owner's address in order to inform the person of the proceedings," (Dkt. 21-1 at 16-17), citing to the sentences: "Jones believes that the Commissioner should have searched for his new address in the Little Rock phonebook and other government records such as income tax rolls. We do not believe the government was required to go this far." Jones, 547 U.S. at 235-36, 126 S.Ct. 1708. However, Jones is more nuanced than Defendants make it out to be. The Supreme Court reasoned that a returned piece of mail labeled "unclaimed" "did not necessarily mean that [the address] was an incorrect address; it merely informed the Commissioner that no one appeared to sign for the mail" and, given that the taxpayer was obligated to keep his address updated, an open-ended search was more burdensome than other additional steps that the Court enumerated as reasonable under the circumstances. Id. at 236, 126 S.Ct. 1708.
Here, unlike in Jones, the returned mail contained clear indications that the address Defendants were using was actually incorrect. Each of the three attempts to mail information to Plaintiff at his Maryland address returned with, "Moved out at least 10 months ago (if he/she ever lived here)," "moved years ago," and "MOVED LONG AGO ... AWAY," respectively. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶¶ 24-27; Dkt. 22-2 at 2). Additionally, as discussed above, it is ambiguous whether there was a requirement for Plaintiff to keep his address updated with USCIS. For these reasons, the fact-specific finding that the government was not required to search records and tax rolls in Jones cannot be said to apply here. Cf. Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890, 893, 896-97 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding that a notice to appear, received by the plaintiff, combined with a hearing notice, not received by the plaintiff because she had not subsequently updated her address, provided adequate notice in a removal hearing context where the notice to appear informed the plaintiff both that she "must notify [the Court] immediately ... whenever [she] change[d] [her] address" and, if she did "not otherwise provide an address at which [she] may be reached during the proceedings, then the Government [would] not be required to provide [her] with written notice of [her] hearing").
At oral argument, Defendants set forth an additional argument that Plaintiff was on notice of the need to keep his address updated with USCIS through the Code of Federal Regulations.
Id. This regulation merely describes the circumstances under which USCIS may deny a petition as abandoned — it says nothing about the method by which a request for evidence or notice of intent to deny may be sent to Plaintiff, or Plaintiff's obligation to keep his address with the agency updated.
Defendants also cited to 8 C.F.R. § 103.8 (Dkt. 28 at 20-21), which reads, in pertinent part:
Id. This regulation apprises parties that notices will be sent to the party's last known address. However, the regulation does not go so far as to impose an affirmative obligation on Plaintiff nor does it state that such service will be sufficient, cf. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(F)(ii), and cannot excuse USCIS from its obligation to provide due process. In Jones, even though the plaintiff had an unambiguously affirmative legal obligation to keep his address updated, in "fail[ing] to comply with [his] statutory obligation [to do so, he did not] forfeit[] his right to constitutionally sufficient notice." Jones, 547 U.S. at 231-32, 126 S.Ct. 1708 (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 26-35-705 ("In the event that the mailing address or electronic address information of the taxpayer changes, the taxpayer has an obligation to furnish the correct mailing address or electronic address information.")). Here, Plaintiff's failure is far less egregious than that in Jones because Plaintiff was never given an affirmative mandate to update his address with USCIS. Because the Supreme Court decided that, despite an affirmative statutory mandate, a plaintiff who failed to update his address could not be deprived of his right to constitutional notice, Plaintiff here cannot be deprived of constitutional notice on the basis of the above-quoted regulation.
"`The scope of review under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard is narrow,'
Id. at 268 (citing State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856). However, agency action is arbitrary and capricious and must be set aside when the agency:
Id. (citing State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856).
USCIS denied Plaintiff's original petition under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i), a regulation entitled: "Failure to submit evidence or respond to a notice of intent to deny." (Tr. 207). In relevant part, the regulation reads: "If the petitioner or applicant fails to respond to a request for evidence or to a notice of intent to deny by the required date, the benefit request may be summarily denied as abandoned, denied based on the record, or denied for both reasons." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i). The denial sent to Plaintiff read:
(Tr. 207).
Plaintiff argues that this denial was arbitrary and capricious because USCIS's "explanation ... runs counter to the evidence before the agency" as the agency knew that Plaintiff no longer lived at the address, never notified Plaintiff of an obligation to update his address, and never updated its website to reflect that Plaintiff's petition was no longer in "initial review." (Dkt. 18-1 at 18). These arguments largely mirror Plaintiff's arguments on the constitutional issue addressed above. However, in most cases, courts are not required to evaluate potential constitutional infirmities under arbitrary and capricious review because the "agency's organic statute does not command explicit constitutional balancing." Communications Act — Scope of Arbitrary and Capricious Review, 123 Harv. L. Rev. 352, 356, 359 (2009) (citing Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 517, 129 S.Ct. 1800, 173 L.Ed.2d 738 (2009)) ("[Justice Scalia] pointed out that the Administrative Procedure Act ... provides separately for constitutional review of agency actions, precluding considerations of such concerns within the scope of arbitrary and capricious review."). Thus, in most cases "[section] 706(2)(A) review would focus on infirmities in an agency's factual reasoning," not on constitutional infirmities. Id. at 360-61.
Here then, the Court must consider USCIS's factual reasoning apart from the constitutional issue discussed above. Given that no substantive facts are at issue in this case, the only "factual reasoning" the Court can consider is that employed by USCIS in determining that the petition
Plaintiff first filed a motion to reopen and reconsider with USCIS on August 9, 2013 (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 20; Dkt. 21-2 at 2; Tr. 176). On January 14, 2015, USCIS denied the motion, (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 29; Dkt. 21-2 at 2; Tr. 71-72), citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(1)(i) and 103.5(a)(2). (Tr. 71-72). 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) states, in relevant part:
And 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) states:
Despite the discretion afforded USCIS in § 103.5(a)(1)(i), none of the non-discretionary requirements of § 103.5(a)(2) were present in this case — the notice went to the address on Plaintiff's petition and Plaintiff had not updated his address with USCIS in writing. Thus, again, leaving aside the constitutional notice issue, which would inform whether the delay was "beyond the control" of Plaintiff, USCIS's decision to deny the motion, based on purely the facts before it, was not arbitrary and capricious.
Plaintiff filed a second motion to reopen shortly after the denial of his first motion on or about February 13, 2015. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 30; Dkt. 21-2 at 2; Tr. 5-8). This motion was denied on August 19, 2015. (Dkt. 18-2 ¶ 31; Dkt. 21-2 at 2; Tr. 2-4). Citing 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i), USCIS denied the motion, erroneously treating the motion as one for reconsideration. (Tr. 1). As explained above, the regulations allow for a modicum of discretion relating to motions to reopen that is not indicated for motions for reconsideration; they also include an outlay of what is required for a successful motion to reopen, for example,
In light for the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 18) is granted in part and Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 21) is denied. USCIS's denial of Plaintiff's petition is set aside and the matter is remanded to USCIS with directions that Plaintiff's priority date be restored, Plaintiff be provided with a reasonable opportunity to provide the additional evidence requested by USCIS, and USCIS re-adjudicate Plaintiff's Form I-130 petition in accordance with this Decision and Order.
SO ORDERED.
Echavarria, 641 F.3d at 95 n.2.
