Sandhu v. United States
916 F. Supp. 2d 329
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Plaintiff Jaswinder Sandhu entered the U.S. on a visitor visa in 1996 and overstayed.
- He married U.S. citizen Rowena Jones in 1997 and promptly filed a Form I-485 to adjust status.
- Jones filed a Form I-130 on Sandhu’s behalf; in 2001 a New York court annulled the marriage on fraud grounds.
- INS/USCIS denied Sandhu’s first I-485 and I-130 in 2002 for failure to appear at an interview.
- In 2007 Sandhu had a new I-140 approval through S.J.K. Restaurant Corp., and filed a second I-485 based on that approved petition.
- USCIS denied the second I-485 in 2011, finding the marriage not bona fide and noting the annulment casts doubt on Jones’ affidavit; Sandhu then filed suit for judicial review in 2012; removal proceedings began in 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1252(a)(2)(B) bars district court review | Sandhu argues this is mixed law/fact and reviewable | Government contends review is barred as discretionary decisionmaking | Yes; no jurisdiction under §1252(a)(2)(B) for discretionary adjustments |
| Whether the claim falls within the constitutional/other non-discretionary review exceptions | Sandhu relies on Sepulveda to argue non-discretionary review | Government argues the determination was discretionary, not a pure legal eligibility issue | No; the determination weighed facts and discretion, not a pure nondiscretionary legal ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosario v. Holder, 627 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2010) (statutory bar to review of discretionary I-485 rulings, with limited exceptions)
- Sepulveda v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2005) (review of nondiscretionary decisions allowed; limits on §1252(a)(2)(B))
- Arenas-Garcia v. Mukasey, 254 F. App’x 105 (2d Cir. 2007) (determination of marriage for immigration purposes is factual)
- Wallace v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2006) (discretionary determination; lack of jurisdiction under §1252(a)(2)(B))
- Ruiz v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 269 (2d Cir. 2009) (generally bars review of discretionary I-485 rulings; exceptions if nondiscretionary)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. DOJ, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (reaffirmed limits on reviewing discretionary immigration decisions)