An Qi Chen v. Coven
672 F. App'x 136
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Chen applied for adjustment of status; USCIS denied her 2014 application as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) for filing a visa petition and adjustment materials containing fraudulent information or willful misrepresentation.
- The allegedly fraudulent submissions dated to 2002 and asserted Chen was an opera singer of extraordinary ability.
- In 2014 Chen testified before an immigration officer; USCIS relied on that testimony and the 2002 materials to conclude the misrepresentations were deliberate.
- Chen sued in district court challenging USCIS’s determination that she made fraudulent or willful misrepresentations; the district court dismissed the complaint.
- The Second Circuit reviewed whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear Chen’s non‑discretionary challenge to eligibility and whether USCIS’s denial was arbitrary and capricious.
- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding the agency’s denial was supported by the record (chiefly Chen’s 2014 testimony and the content of the 2002 petition).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had subject‑matter jurisdiction to review Chen’s challenge | Chen argued the court could review USCIS’s non‑discretionary eligibility determination (challenge to fraud finding) | Government argued jurisdiction was limited by § 1252’s stripping of review over discretionary decisions | Court: Jurisdiction existed because Chen challenged a non‑discretionary eligibility determination, not a discretionary grant of relief |
| Whether USCIS’s finding of fraudulent/willful misrepresentation was arbitrary and capricious | Chen argued she did not know or understand the 2002 petition, lacked English proficiency, and did not specifically intend to deceive; signature alone insufficient | Government relied on Chen’s 2014 testimony and the 2002 petition’s contents to show deliberate misrepresentations | Court: USCIS’s decision was not arbitrary; record (2014 testimony and 2002 materials) supports deliberate misrepresentation |
| Whether a specific intent to deceive was required to find fraud for inadmissibility | Chen argued the government needed to prove specific intent to deceive | Government relied on precedent that specific intent is not necessary to find a willful misrepresentation | Court: Specific intent to deceive is not required; evidence showed deliberate pursuit of a false claim |
| Whether Chen’s limited English proficiency negated knowledge of false statements | Chen argued inability to read English prevented awareness of falsity | Government pointed to visual and translated materials in the petition and Chen’s testimony indicating awareness | Court: English inability did not prevent observation of false content; petition contained Chinese materials and images supporting inference of knowledge |
Key Cases Cited
- Liranzo v. United States, 690 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing jurisdictional dismissal)
- Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721 (2d Cir. 2015) (§ 1252 bars review of substantive discretionary decisions)
- Sepulveda v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2005) (district court retains jurisdiction over non‑discretionary eligibility challenges)
- Karpova v. Snow, 497 F.3d 262 (2d Cir. 2007) (arbitrary and capricious standard and requirement of a rational connection between facts and agency choice)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (formulation of arbitrary and capricious standard under the APA)
- Emokah v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) (definition of willfulness and when misrepresentation is not inoculated by mistake)