794 F.3d 119
1st Cir.2015Background
- Joel Njoroge Manguriu, a Kenyan national, entered the U.S. on a student visa in 1999, overstayed, and later married U.S. citizen Manuelita Lopez, who filed an I-130 in 2006.
- USCIS denied the I-130 for marriage fraud; DHS initiated removal proceedings in 2009 and Manguriu conceded removability.
- Manguriu sought relief under VAWA; USCIS approved his VAWA self-petition in December 2010, and he asked the IJ to adjust status to lawful permanent resident.
- The IJ found statutory eligibility but denied adjustment as a discretionary matter based on marriage fraud, misrepresentation, false testimony, and unpaid taxes; the BIA affirmed in February 2014.
- While the judicial-review petition was pending, USCIS issued notice of intent to revoke the VAWA approval and revoked it on June 20, 2014; Manguriu did not respond and contests whether he received proper notice.
- The government argued the revocation moots the judicial-review petition; the First Circuit considered whether it could consider the revocation (outside the administrative record) and whether remand was required to resolve factual disputes about notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court consider agency action outside the administrative record when jurisdiction/mootness is at issue? | Manguriu: court should review only the administrative record (implied), but did not dispute consideration here. | Gov't: the court may consider the USCIS revocation to determine mootness. | Court: Yes; courts may consider outside-agency actions relevant to a colorable mootness claim. |
| Has the USCIS revocation of the VAWA petition rendered the judicial-review petition moot? | Manguriu: revocation notice was ineffective (sent to former counsel), so revocation may be invalid and case not moot. | Gov't: revocation eliminates approved petition, so meaningful relief (adjustment) is impossible; case moot. | Court: Not resolved on existing record; factual dispute over notice requires remand to BIA. |
| Did the agency violate its own regulation by failing to give proper notice of revocation proceedings? | Manguriu: 8 C.F.R. §205.2(b) requires notice and opportunity to oppose; USCIS failed to comply. | Gov't: contends revocation was valid (procedural defense). | Court: Compliance with agency notice rules is required; unresolved factual record necessitates further factfinding. |
| Appropriate next step when post-decision events create unclear mootness? | Manguriu: request further review/challenge to revocation (implied). | Gov't: argue disposition on mootness if facts support it. | Court: Remand to BIA for inquiry on whether revocation was lawfully accomplished and whether the appeal is now moot; retain jurisdiction and require 90-day status reports. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (administrative-review ordinarily confined to administrative record)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (jurisdictional questions, including mootness, must be considered first)
- Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (events during litigation can render case moot)
- Fort Stewart Sch. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 495 U.S. 641 (agencies must follow their own regulations)
- Aguilar v. U.S. ICE, 510 F.3d 1 (courts may take judicial notice of agency determinations)
- Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365 (courts may consider agency actions outside the administrative record in immigration matters)