894 F.3d 557
3rd Cir.2018Background
- Ahmed Bakran, a U.S. citizen convicted in 2004 of sexual offenses against a minor, married an adult foreign national and filed I-130/I-485 petitions to secure her adjustment of status.
- The Adam Walsh Act (AWA) amended INA §1154 to bar citizens convicted of "specified offenses against a minor" from filing family-based petitions unless "the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion, determines that the citizen poses no risk" to the beneficiary.
- USCIS issued two memoranda: the Aytes Memo requiring petitioners to prove "beyond any reasonable doubt" they pose no risk, and the Neufeld Memo advising that approvals should be "rare."
- USCIS denied Bakran’s petition under the AWA; Bakran sued in district court alleging APA (ultra vires/interpretive rule) and constitutional (substantive due process/right to marry and retroactivity) claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims. On appeal, the Third Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review the APA challenges to the agency memoranda but retained and decided the constitutional and retroactivity claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts may review USCIS memoranda (Aytes/Neufeld) alleging ultra vires APA claims | Aytes/Neufeld impose an unlawful beyond-reasonable-doubt burden and presumption of denial; agency exceeded statutory authority | AWA gives Secretary unreviewable discretion to "determine" no-risk; procedural guidance is part of that discretion and thus unreviewable | No jurisdiction — APA claims dismissed because memoranda govern Secretary’s statutorily unreviewable no-risk determination |
| Whether the AWA violates substantive due process/right to marry by blocking sponsorship of foreign spouse | AWA effectively prevents Bakran from living with his spouse in U.S.; infringes marriage-related liberty interests | No right recognized to sponsor an alien spouse; immigration admissions are plenary congressional power; AWA restricts a statutory benefit tied to conviction | Claim rejected — no fundamental right to have citizen-spouse’s immigrant reside in U.S.; AWA does not infringe right to marry |
| Whether the AWA is impermissibly retroactive | Applying AWA to pre-enactment convictions attaches new disabilities to past conduct | AWA targets prevention of future risk and explicitly applies to those who "has been convicted," indicating prospective preventive focus | Claim rejected — AWA civil and preventive in nature; does not operate retroactively |
| Whether district court had jurisdiction to decide constitutional challenges despite §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) | (implicit) constitutional claims are reviewable | INA’s jurisdictional limits do not bar review of constitutional/statutory challenges to the statute itself | Court retained jurisdiction over constitutional and retroactivity claims and affirmed dismissal on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (interpretive-deference framework for agency statutory interpretations)
- Alaka v. Attorney General of U.S., 456 F.3d 88 (3d Cir.) (distinguishing which agency actions Congress made unreviewable)
- Gebhardt v. Nielsen, 879 F.3d 980 (9th Cir.) (no jurisdiction to review AWA no-risk standard and burden challenges)
- Roland v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 850 F.3d 625 (4th Cir.) (challenges to discretionary no-risk determinations are unreviewable)
- Bremer v. Johnson, 834 F.3d 925 (8th Cir.) (same; beyond-any-reasonable-doubt requirement unreviewable)
- Jilin Pharmaceutical USA, Inc. v. Chertoff, 447 F.3d 196 (3d Cir.) (agency’s case-by-case discretion can encompass definitions and standards)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (judicial-review presumption for administrative action)
- Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (statutory retroactivity analysis; focus on whether law targets future conduct)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (fundamental right to marry recognized)
- Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (statutory limits on jurisdiction do not necessarily preclude constitutional review)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (retroactivity framework for statutes)