Amjad Ali Alabed v. Jonathan Crawford
691 F. App'x 430
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Alabed (beneficiary) and Murillo (wife) filed an I-130 immediate-relative petition; USCIS and the BIA determined the marriage was fraudulent and denied the petition.
- Murillo gave a sworn statement admitting the marriage was fraudulent and that Alabed paid her; police report and statements indicated Alabed had a long-term romantic relationship with another woman, Gina Botello.
- PG&E records corroborated Botello and Alabed living together in 1999–2000; petitioners submitted limited documentary evidence and new declarations attempting to rebut fraud allegations.
- USCIS concluded there was substantial and probative evidence of marriage fraud; burden shifted to petitioners, who the BIA found did not rebut the evidence or persuade on credibility.
- Petitioners sued; district court granted summary judgment for USCIS/BIA. The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA’s fraud finding was arbitrary and capricious | BIA lacked sufficient evidence; petitioners’ rebuttal declarations show a bona fide marriage | Substantial and probative evidence (Murillo’s admission, police report, Botello’s statements, utility records) supports fraud finding | Affirmed: finding supported by substantial evidence; not arbitrary or capricious |
| Proper allocation of burdens in marriage-fraud determinations | Petitioners argued they met burden to show bona fides with submitted evidence | Government produced initial evidence of fraud; burden properly shifted to petitioners to rebut | Affirmed: burden-shifting rule applied; petitioners failed to rebut evidence |
| Credibility of declarations and weight of rebuttal evidence | New declarations from Murillo/Botello and friends/family were credible and sufficient | BIA reasonably discredited new declarations and found corroborating evidence of a sham marriage persuasive | Affirmed: BIA credibility determinations reasonable under record |
| Whether petitioners had a due process right to cross-examine witnesses (Botello, Murillo, USCIS officers) | Requested cross-examination was necessary to avoid erroneous deprivation (relying on Ching) | Mathews factors weigh against cross-examination here because other evidence reduces risk and petitioners had access to declarations | Affirmed: no due process right to cross-examine under the circumstances; Ching distinguished on facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Wang v. Rodriguez, 830 F.3d 958 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for district court summary judgment review)
- Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 365 (9th Cir.) (de novo review of constitutional due process challenges to immigration decisions)
- Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.) (evidence must be probative of marriage motivation, not just marriage itself)
- Ching v. Mayorkas, 725 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir.) (due process cross-examination right in I-130 context where evidence is limited)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S.) (factors balancing procedural due process requirements)