369 F. Supp. 3d 492
E.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Plaintiff Lorena del Carmen Alvarez Sosa filed an I-360 petition seeking Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) classification; she later sued after USCIS denied the petition.
- At filing (Aug. 21, 2015) plaintiff answered that juvenile-court dependency findings existed, but the Nassau County Family Court's Special Findings Order was not issued until Aug. 25, 2015 (after filing, one day before her 21st birthday).
- USCIS adjudicated and denied the I-360 for failure to establish eligibility at the time of filing; USCIS later received the family-court orders and referenced them in its denial and denial of plaintiff's motion to reopen.
- Plaintiff alleged (among other claims) violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (arbitrary & capricious review), that 8 C.F.R. § 204.11 is invalid, and that 8 U.S.C. § 1232(d)(6) (the TVPRA "age-out" provision) required approval.
- Magistrate Judge Brown recommended defendants' Rule 12(c) motion be granted; the district court accepted the Report in full and granted judgment on the pleadings, dismissing plaintiff's claims with prejudice (mandamus/§706(1) claims dismissed as moot).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USCIS action denying I-360 was arbitrary and capricious under APA § 706(2)(A) | Alvarez: USCIS acted arbitrarily by not sending an RFE and by denying despite family-court orders existing when USCIS reviewed the petition | USCIS: Plaintiff failed to establish eligibility at time of filing; agency discretion governs RFEs and it considered the late-submitted orders | Held: Denial was not arbitrary or capricious; plaintiff bore burden to show eligibility at filing; dismissal with prejudice. |
| Whether USCIS was required to issue an RFE before denying the petition | Alvarez: An RFE should have been sent to allow submission of court orders | USCIS: Regulation gives discretion to deny or request evidence; here USCIS had received and considered the orders by adjudication | Held: No mandatory RFE duty; denial was permissible and not arbitrary. |
| Validity of 8 C.F.R. § 204.11 (whether regulation contradicts INA) | Alvarez: Regulation impermissibly interprets or conflicts with 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) | Defendants: Regulation fills statutory gaps, is a reasonable implementation of SIJ eligibility and filing procedures | Held: Chevron applies; § 204.11 is a permissible, reasonable construction and does not conflict with statute; claim dismissed. |
| Application of TVPRA § 235(d)(6) (age-out protection) | Alvarez: She filed before turning 21; TVPRA forbids denial based on age where filed before 21, so USCIS should not have denied | Defendants: Denial was not based on age but on failure to establish eligibility at filing (no valid dependency order at filing) | Held: TVPRA age protection inapplicable because denial rested on lack of eligibility at filing, not age; claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (two-step test; defer to reasonable agency interpretations)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard requires agency to examine relevant data and show rational connection)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (judicial review of administrative action requires searching and careful inquiry but is narrow)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (standards for district-court review of magistrate judge reports)
- Natural Res. Def. Council v. F.A.A., 564 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2009) (courts cannot substitute their judgment for agency under § 706(2)(A))
- Osorio-Martinez v. Attorney Gen., 893 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 2018) (SIJ framework: state juvenile-court findings are prerequisites to USCIS adjudication)
- Budhathoki v. Nielsen, 898 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 2018) (applicant bears burden to establish SIJ eligibility and must file with predicate juvenile-court order)