Venevision Productions LLC v. Director, Texas Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
680 F. App'x 802
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Mariana Monzon, a Venezuelan citizen, married U.S. citizen Rodolfo Valdes in 2008; a 2009 I‑130 petition filed by Valdes was denied after USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) finding marriage fraud; Monzon and Valdes did not appeal and later divorced.
- In December 2012 Venevision filed an I‑140 immigrant‑worker petition on Monzon’s behalf. USCIS issued a NOID in June 2013 asserting the marriage‑fraud bar; the I‑140 was denied in August 2013.
- Venevision appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), which denied the appeal on two independent grounds: (1) application of the marriage‑fraud bar based on substantial and probative evidence, and (2) Venevision’s inability to pay the proffered wage.
- Appellants sued in district court; the district court granted summary judgment for the government, and the panel reviews that grant de novo under the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard.
- Appellants argued the AAO decision was arbitrary, based on an incomplete record, violated due process and federal regulations (failure to meaningfully notify/rebut derogatory evidence, failure to follow procedures, and giving conclusive effect to prior I‑130 denial), and that the record did not support marriage fraud.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AAO violated procedural rules by relying on an incomplete/transcribed record | AAO record was incomplete (illegible handwriting, missing verbatim transcript) so decision arbitrary | No legal rule requires verbatim transcription; record was adequate | Rejected — no legal requirement; record review proper |
| Whether AAO/USCIS violated due process or regulations by failing to notify or permit rebuttal of derogatory evidence | Appellants claim lack of meaningful opportunity to rebut derogatory evidence and violations of 8 C.F.R. provisions | Appellees assert appellants received notice and opportunity to rebut; internal manuals are not law | Rejected — appellants received opportunity; no regulatory violation; no protected liberty interest |
| Whether AAO gave conclusive effect to prior I‑130 denial rather than an independent de novo review | Appellants contend AAO improperly relied solely on prior I‑130 denial | AAO performed de novo review of entire record, considered rebuttal evidence | Rejected — AAO reviewed de novo and considered all evidence |
| Whether record contains substantial evidence of marriage fraud and/or grounds to deny I‑140 (including inability to pay) | Appellants say record lacks substantial probative evidence of marriage fraud and inability to pay | Government points to interview discrepancies, separate finances/addresses, lack of marital evidence, and employer’s inability to pay | Affirmed — substantial and probative evidence supports marriage‑fraud finding; alternative basis (inability to pay) also valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Shuford v. Fidelity National Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 508 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2007) (summary‑judgment de novo review of district court decision)
- Sierra Club v. Flowers, 526 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2008) (APA arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard and deference to agencies)
- Preservation Endangered Areas of Cobb’s History, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 87 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1996) (review focuses on administrative record)
- Bright v. Nimmo, 756 F.2d 1513 (11th Cir. 1985) (agency manuals lacking force of law; failure to follow internal procedures not actionable)
- Bradley v. Sebelius, 621 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal agency guidance does not create enforceable rights)
- Scheerer v. Attorney General, 513 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2008) (no protected liberty interest for certain immigration process claims)
- Stone & Webster Construction, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Labor, 684 F.3d 1127 (11th Cir. 2012) (definition of substantial evidence standard)