Mamedova v. USCIS, 1:20-cv-00972

Plaintiff Samuel Levy filed an I-130 petition for his wife, Gulara Mamedova, to classify her as an immediate relative for immigration purposes.
USCIS initially approved the petition but later issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke, citing Mamedova’s prior marriage to Charles White as a sham entered to evade immigration laws.
The prior marriage was brief, occurred while Mamedova was in removal proceedings, and involved associations with others involved in marriage fraud.
Plaintiffs challenged the revocation as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and a violation of their Fifth Amendment due process rights.
Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the court’s review was limited to the administrative record and applied the deferential APA standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Arbitrary & Capricious under APA	Revocation relied on weak circumstantial evidence	Ample evidence of prior sham marriage	USCIS's decision was not arbitrary or capricious; ample evidence supported revocation.
Delay as Prejudice under APA	8-year delay prejudiced ability to gather evidence	Delay does not make revocation unlawful	Delay alone does not render the decision arbitrary or capricious.
Procedural Compliance under Regulations	Not provided full record or evidence summary	Regulations only require summary, not full	USCIS provided adequate notice per regulations; summary suffices.
Due Process under Fifth Amendment	Revocation violated Fifth Amendment rights	No protected interest in I-130 petition	No due process violation; USCIS procedures met legal requirements.

Bangura v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2006) (sets APA deferential standard and discusses due process interests in I-130 context)
Almario v. Attorney General, 872 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1989) (no due process right for citizen spouse to have alien spouse remain in U.S.)
Wright v. INS, 379 F.2d 275 (6th Cir. 1967) (alien spouse has no protected interest in I-130 petition)