Sigitas Brinklys v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, 702 F. App'x 856

Aurelija (citizen of Lithuania) entered the U.S. on a visitor visa; in February 2003 she married U.S. citizen Frank Caruso, and about a month later Raimondas Kalinauskas (also Lithuanian) married a U.S. citizen, Luzmaria Martinez.
Law-enforcement and immigration-investigation materials indicated Aurelija actually lived with Kalinauskas, not Caruso; property records showed Aurelija and Kalinauskas purchased property together and listed themselves as husband and wife; Kalinauskas’s U.S. spouse later admitted her marriage was a sham.
In November 2007 Aurelija married Sigitas Brinklys; Brinklys filed an I-130 petition stating they lived together in Florida. ICE/CIS issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) and later denied the petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) based on a finding that Aurelija’s prior marriage to Caruso was fraudulent.
Brinklys responded to the NOID but the CIS and then the BIA (on de novo review) concluded substantial and probative evidence supported the marriage-fraud finding and affirmed the denial; the BIA also held CIS satisfied regulatory notice requirements by summarizing the derogatory information rather than providing the underlying documents.
Plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CIS violated its regulations and Brinklys’s due process rights by not providing the underlying derogatory documents (NOID sufficiency)	Brinklys: CIS must disclose the actual derogatory documents supporting the fraud finding; absence deprived him of meaningful notice and process	CIS: Regulations require notice of the information forming the basis for denial and an opportunity to rebut; summary of derogatory information in NOID suffices	Held: CIS complied with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16) by summarizing the derogatory information in a NOID; no due process violation.
Whether the record contains substantial and probative evidence that Aurelija’s prior marriage to Caruso was fraudulent (application of 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c))	Brinklys: Record does not support a finding of marriage fraud; explanations offered rebut the evidence	CIS/BIA: Multiple corroborating items (police report, property records, lease, witness statements, admissions) constitute substantial and probative evidence of a sham marriage	Held: Substantial and probative evidence supports the fraud determination; agency decision not arbitrary or capricious; denial affirmed.

O’Ferrell v. United States, 253 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001) (summary judgment standard and de novo review of district court grant)
Warshauer v. Solis, 577 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2009) (limited scope to reverse agency decisions under arbitrary-and-capricious standard)
Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 733 F.3d 1106 (11th Cir. 2013) (courts do not substitute their judgment for agency’s under arbitrary-and-capricious review)
Mendoza v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 851 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2017) (standards for setting aside agency action and marriage-fraud inquiry)
Ghaly v. I.N.S., 48 F.3d 1426 (7th Cir. 1995) (regulations do not require providing underlying documents; summary notice may suffice)