Ankush Sehgal v. Loretta Lynch, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3069

Background

Mohit Sehgal, an Indian citizen, overstayed a visitor visa and in 2003 married U.S. citizen Renee Miller; Miller filed an I-130 and Mohit filed an I-485 to adjust status.
USCIS investigated, initially denied Miller’s I-130 for lack of a bona fide marital union, later reopened and ultimately denied after evidence suggested the marriage had ended and was fraudulent.
In 2009 ICE arrested Mohit during an investigation of a marriage-brokering scheme; Mohit signed a written, sworn confession admitting he paid for a sham marriage arranged by Teresita Zarrabian and Miller to obtain permanent residency.
Miller later gave a handwritten statement corroborating that she was paid to marry Mohit; that statement was unsworn but repeated verbatim in USCIS notices and agency submissions (initially mischaracterized as sworn).
Mohit and his husband Ankush (a U.S. citizen) filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act after USCIS denied Ankush’s I-130 petition for Mohit on the ground of Mohit’s prior marriage fraud; the district court granted summary judgment for the agency.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that substantial evidence (Mohit’s sworn confession and corroboration) supported the fraud finding despite agency procedural sloppiness and the Seghals’ coercion and disclosure claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports finding Mohit’s earlier marriage was fraudulent	Seghal contends the record does not support fraud because his later marriage to Ankush is bona fide and his confession is unreliable	USCIS points to Mohit’s sworn confession and Miller’s corroborating statement plus inconsistencies in other testimony	Held: Substantial evidence supports fraud finding based primarily on Mohit’s sworn confession and corroboration; denial affirmed
Admissibility/weight of Miller’s unsworn handwritten statement	Miller’s statement is unreliable hearsay and was mischaracterized as sworn; weight should be reduced	Statement is probative and admissible in immigration proceedings; corroborated by Mohit’s confession	Held: Statement admissible and probative; mischaracterization as sworn was sloppy but harmless because Mohit’s sworn confession independently supports fraud finding
Whether Mohit’s 2009 confession was coerced and should be suppressed	Mohit alleges coercion, physical mistreatment, medication/cast, and lack of access to the written confession—so confession is involuntary	Government argues confession was voluntary, Mohit failed to make a prima facie showing of egregious misconduct, and exclusionary rule rarely applies in immigration context	Held: Coercion claims were vague/inconsistent and insufficient; confession not suppressed and remains substantial evidence
Whether USCIS’s procedural errors (failure to disclose Miller’s statement; delay/misrepresenting appeal) require reversal/remedy	Seghal argues agency violated its disclosure regulation and engaged in egregious conduct causing prejudice	Government acknowledges sloppiness but contends summary/repetition of the statement in the notice cured prejudice and delay caused no harm	Held: Disclosure and delay errors were regrettable; failure to provide a copy was not reversible error because adequate verbatim disclosure and independent evidence (confession) made error harmless

Key Cases Cited

Ogbolumani v. Napolitano, 557 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2009) (USCIS may rely on admissions in denying family-based petition)
Aioub v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2008) (admissions and exchanges for money provide substantial evidence of sham marriage)
Ghaly v. INS, 48 F.3d 1426 (7th Cir. 1995) (upholding denial based on spouse’s admission of marriage fraud)
Reynoso v. Holder, 711 F.3d 199 (1st Cir. 2013) (inconsistencies in statements weaken claim of bona fide marriage)
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) (exclusionary rule generally inapplicable in immigration proceedings)
Martinez-Camargo v. INS, 282 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2002) (discussing circumstances warranting suppression in immigration context)