929 F.3d 478
7th Cir.2019Background
- John Doe, an Iranian national, obtained conditional permanent residency under the EB-5 investor program after investing $500,000 in a regional-center-funded project (Elgin Memory Care), which planned a 110-unit assisted living facility.
- His I-526 and adjustment-of-status approvals were based on a business plan projecting timely construction and creation of at least ten full-time jobs; conditional residency lasted two years.
- Before he filed to remove conditions (I-829), USCIS discovered a same-day land sale chain in public records: the parcel was bought by an intermediate purchaser for $630,000 and resold hours later to Elgin Memory Care for $1.1 million, raising questions about the transaction’s legitimacy and whether Doe’s capital was truly placed "at risk."
- USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) asking for documents explaining the prior sale, relationships among parties, sustained at-risk capital, and updated job-creation support; Doe replied with affidavits and partial financials but no original sale documents or independent appraisal.
- USCIS denied the I-829 on two independent grounds: (1) Doe failed to show his investment was sustained and placed at risk (given the suspicious land flip), and (2) the project failed to demonstrate it would create the required number of jobs. The district court granted summary judgment for the government; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USCIS arbitrarily found Doe’s capital was not “at risk” (legitimacy of land transaction) | Doe: USCIS imposed extra evidentiary requirements, relied on speculation, and ignored his submitted affidavits | Gov: The same-day resale and large unexplained profit warranted skepticism; RFE requested specific evidence which Doe failed to provide | Held: USCIS’s conclusion was reasonable; denial not arbitrary or capricious because Doe failed to overcome derogatory evidence |
| Whether the project satisfied EB-5 job-creation requirement | Doe: Employment-impact report and methodology adequately showed indirect jobs; agency misapplied duration requirement | Gov: Report unreliable (construction not begun); methodology and disputed expenditures could be excluded; even counted indirect jobs fell short of ten | Held: Court upheld agency’s rejection of the job-creation proof as reasonable |
| Whether USCIS improperly rejected Doe’s affidavits and evidence without adequate explanation | Doe: Agency failed to credit uncontradicted statements and did not address submitted evidence | Gov: Agency gave reasoned explanation why affidavits and redacted financials did not dispel core concerns (need for independent objective evidence) | Held: Agency provided adequate reasons to discount self‑serving affidavits; rejection permissible under APA review standards |
| Whether alternative grounds mean reversal requires showing both were erroneous | Doe: Challenged agency reasoning generally | Gov: If any one independent ground is valid, denial stands | Held: Because the at‑risk ground was valid, the court affirmed without reaching the job‑creation alternative further |
Key Cases Cited
- Zero Zone, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Energy, 832 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2016) (describing the arbitrary-and-capricious standard)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (Sup. Ct.) (application of arbitrary-and-capricious factors)
- Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) (review limited to reasons given by the agency)
- Saylor v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 723 F.2d 581 (7th Cir. 1983) (inspection of agency explanations under the APA)
- BDPCS, Inc. v. FCC, 351 F.3d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (validating agency decision where any independent ground is sufficient)
- Soltane v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 381 F.3d 143 (3d Cir. 2004) (agencies may reject uncontradicted testimony if they give adequate reasons)
- Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 1251 (11th Cir. 1983) (support for rejecting testimony with reasoned explanation)
- St. Joan Antida High Sch. Inc. v. Milwaukee Pub. Sch. Dist., 919 F.3d 1003 (7th Cir. 2019) (standard of de novo review for district court summary judgment decisions)