Basil v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Civil Action No. 2016-1084

Background

Plaintiff (Tanzanian) entered the U.S. in 2000 and married A‑G‑ on December 30, 2001; that marriage was annulled January 24, 2003. A‑G‑ later was convicted of marriage fraud.
A‑G‑ filed an I‑130 for plaintiff on February 20, 2002; USCIS investigated and denied that I‑130 (June 25, 2004), finding A‑G‑ had multiple simultaneous marriages and that her marriage to plaintiff was a sham.
Plaintiff subsequently married R‑D‑ (March 28, 2003); R‑D‑ filed an I‑130 for him in 2003, which was denied under INA §204(c) because of the prior fraudulent marriage finding.
Plaintiff filed a VAWA self‑petition (I‑360) in 2011 alleging battery/extreme cruelty by R‑D‑. The Acting Director denied the I‑360 in 2014 for failure to show (1) good‑faith marriage to R‑D‑ and (2) that the §204(c) bar did not apply due to the earlier sham marriage.
The AAO affirmed (Jan. 29, 2015), finding plaintiff proved abuse but failed to rebut the record that his marriage to A‑G‑ was entered into to evade immigration laws and also failed to show by a preponderance that his marriage to R‑D‑ was bona fide. A motion to reopen was denied (Oct. 13, 2015).
Plaintiff sought judicial review under the APA; the district court granted USCIS’s motion to dismiss/opposition, denied plaintiff’s motions, and dismissed the action, finding the agency decision neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §204(c) may be applied based on plaintiff's annulled prior marriage to A‑G‑	Basil: annulment means the first marriage should be treated as if it never existed and cannot be used to bar relief	DHS: USCIS properly relied on investigative record and A‑G‑'s conviction to conclude the marriage was a sham and §204(c) applies	Court: §204(c) properly applied; annulment does not negate intent at time of marriage or preclude agency reliance on prior sham finding
Whether plaintiff rebutted the §204(c) bar by showing he married A‑G‑ in good faith	Basil: he was not responsible for A‑G‑'s misconduct and provided the annulment	DHS: record lacked probative evidence of courtship, shared life, or good‑faith intent; conviction of A‑G‑ reinforces fraud finding	Court: plaintiff failed to meet burden to show good‑faith marriage to A‑G‑; §204(c) bars approval
Whether plaintiff established good‑faith marriage to R‑D‑ (I‑360 substantive requirement)	Basil: proved abuse by R‑D‑; abuse should suffice or reduce need for other corroboration	DHS: abuse alone is one element; petitioner must show good‑faith marriage through probative evidence of shared life	Court: plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of courtship, shared residence, or other indicia of bona fides; AAO decision upheld
Whether the AAO’s decision was arbitrary and capricious under the APA	Basil: administrative errors and misapplication of law warrant reversal	DHS: AAO conducted de novo review of record and reached reasonable conclusions supported by evidence	Court: review is deferential; AAO’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious and is sustained

Key Cases Cited

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (explains arbitrary and capricious standard for agency action)
Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (judicial review focuses on administrative record)
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (courts must not substitute their judgment for agency’s within scope of review)
Bean Dredging, LLC v. United States, 773 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2011) (noting highly deferential APA review standard)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se complaints are liberally construed)
United States v. Arrington, 763 F.3d 17 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (reiterating liberal construction of pro se filings)
Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons, 286 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (same)