Anesh Gupta v. U.S. Attorney General
20-12811
| 11th Cir. | Jul 16, 2021Background
- Anesh Gupta, an Indian citizen with a prior multiple-entry visa, filed for adjustment of status (I-485) after a U.S. citizen filed an I-130 on his behalf; USCIS denied the I-130 and the I-485 as the marriage was found not bona fide and the putative wife was deemed to have abandoned the petition.
- DHS initiated removal proceedings; the immigration judge ordered reconsideration, the agency again denied the visa petition and adjustment, and Gupta sued in district court under the APA challenging the denials.
- The district court ordered the government to file the certified administrative record; two pages were later identified as inadvertently omitted (a signature page from a letter and one I-485 worksheet page referencing criminal history), and the government supplemented the record.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the government, finding denial was based on marriage fraud/abandonment rather than the omitted materials or Gupta’s allegations against Disney.
- Gupta filed a Rule 60(d)(3) motion (fraud on the court) in 2020 and requested an evidentiary hearing and a stay; the district court denied relief and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction to review I-130 and I-485 decisions | Gupta: District court lacked jurisdiction because he was in removal proceedings and administrative remedies were not exhausted | Gov: Agency issued a final decision on the I-130/I-485 that is reviewable; district court has jurisdiction under the APA | Court: Jurisdiction existed; agency issued a final decision and the court could review it |
| Indispensable-party joinder (putative wife) | Gupta: The I-130 was filed by the putative wife, so she was an indispensable party not joined | Gov: The court could afford complete relief to Gupta without her; she had not acted to pursue the petition and effectively abandoned it | Court: No abuse of discretion in refusing to join the putative wife; she was not indispensable |
| Rule 60(d)(3) fraud-on-the-court claim based on omitted pages | Gupta: Government omitted material pages from the administrative record, constituting fraud on the court that affected the outcome | Gov: The omissions were inadvertent, were supplemented, and were unrelated to the marriage-fraud grounds for denial | Court: Denial affirmed—Gupta failed to prove fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence; omissions amounted to nondisclosure, not the egregious subversion required for fraud on the court |
| Request for evidentiary hearing and stay | Gupta: Court should hold a hearing to investigate alleged fraud and stay enforcement | Gov: No hearing needed because omitted pages were irrelevant to the challenged decision; stay moot if Rule 60 denied | Court: Denial of evidentiary hearing and stay was not an abuse of discretion; hearing would not have aided analysis and stay became moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Canal A Media Holding, LLC v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 964 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2020) (agency finality and that IJs lack jurisdiction to decide visa petitions)
- Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999) (standard of review for subject-matter jurisdiction: de novo)
- Cox Nuclear Pharm., Inc. v. CTI, Inc., 478 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2007) (Rule 60(d)(3) fraud-on-the-court standard; appellate review for abuse of discretion)
- Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1978) (fraud on the court requires egregious misconduct that subverts the judicial process)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Gore, 761 F.2d 1549 (11th Cir. 1985) (distinguishing ordinary nondisclosure/perjury from fraud on the court)
- Cliff v. Payco Gen. Am. Credits, Inc., 363 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2004) (review of district court's decision whether to hold evidentiary hearing is for abuse of discretion)
- Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2006) (no evidentiary hearing required when it would not aid the court's analysis)
- Gupta v. U.S. Att'y Gen., [citation="806 F. App'x 810"] (11th Cir. 2020) (background on litigant's prior filings)