Breaking NewsLaw.com and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Friday Feb. 26 9 PM US EST to Saturday Feb. 27 6 AM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.

 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:John Ayanbadejo, a citizen of Nigeria, met Felicia Malveaux Ayanbadejo, a U.S. citizen residing in Beaumont, during a visit to the United States on a tourist visa in December 1996. The couple married on Feb. 10, 1997. Less than a month after their marriage, Felicia filed a Form I-130 “Petition for Alien Relative” to have John classified as an “immediate relative.” John subsequently filed a Form I-485 “Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status” to become a lawful permanent resident. On Dec. 5, 2000, after an investigation by the USCIS raised doubts about the validity of the Ayanbadejos’ marriage, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency (USCIS) issued a notice of intent to deny Felicia’s I-130 petition and John’s I-485 application. On April 17, 2001, Felicia filed a second I-130 petition seeking an immediate relative visa for John, and John filed a second I-485 application requesting adjustment of his status. On June 26, 2002, USCIS issued a notice of intent to deny Felicia’s second I-130 petition on the same ground as its previous notice of intent to deny: that the Ayanbadejos’ union was not bona fide but was a sham marriage, entered into solely for immigration purposes. Felicia filed a response to USCIS’ notice with additional documentation. Unpersuaded, on Oct. 9, 2002, the USCIS issued a notice of denial of the Felicia’s I-130 petition and John’s I-485 application. When USCIS denied the Ayanbadejos’ I-130 petition and I-485 application based on its finding that their marriage was entered into for the purposes of circumventing immigration laws, the Ayanbadejos filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals of the U.S. Department of Justice. On June 16, 2005, the BIA affirmed the USCIS decision without a written order. John subsequently filed a petition for review of the BIA’s decision with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Ayanbadejos then filed a complaint in federal district court. The government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the REAL ID Act of 2005, codified at 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B), eliminated the district court’s right to review the Ayanbadejos’ I-130 petition and I-485 application. The Ayanbadejos filed a motion to amend their complaint, in which they alleged that USCIS and BIA violated: 1. their constitutional rights when they were denied a full and fair hearing before the USCIS and BIA; 2. their rights under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when they requested, but did not receive, their immigration records within 30 days of filing a request, as required by FOIA; and 3. their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The district court held that: 1. the immigration decisions involving the Ayanbadejos did not violate their constitutional rights, because the correct standards were employed in determining that the couple failed to provide sufficient evidence that their marriage was bona fide; 2. the USCIS’ denials of Felicia’s I-130 petition and John’s I-485 application were within its discretion and therefore not subject to judicial review; 3. the Ayanbadejos’ FOIA claim was moot, because the records they requested had been produced; and 4. their claim under the ICCPR did not present a cognizable cause of action. For these reasons, the court denied the Ayanbadejos’ motion to amend their complaint to present their FOIA and ICCPR claims and granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Ayanbadejos filed a motion for new trial, which the district court denied. The Ayanbadejos then appealed. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), the court stated, provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any other decision or action of the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.” The court stated that it interprets this language to mean that courts are precluded from reviewing those decisions specified in the statute to be discretionary. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) explicitly places “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under . . . section 1255,” which provides the statutory authority for I-485 applications, in this category of discretionary decisions that no courts have jurisdiction to review. Thus, the court found that the law makes clear that it and the district court lacked jurisdiction over determinations made with respect to an I-485 application for permanent resident status under �1255. The court held that the district court correctly found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of John’s I-485 application. Felicia’s I-130 petition, the court stated, is a different story. I-130 petitions are authorized by �1154 (a)(1)(A)(i), not � 1255, and are not mentioned in �1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Thus, the court stated that determinations regarding the validity of marriage for I-130 petition purposes are not discretionary within the meaning of �1252(a)(2)(B); accordingly, they are subject to review by courts. The court held that the district court incorrectly concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to review Felicia’s I-130 petition. Finally, the court found that the district court did not err in denying the Ayanbadejos’ motion to amend their complaint to include their FOIA and ICCPR claims or in denying the Ayanbadejos’ motion for a new trial. OPINION:Per curiam; Wiener, Barksdale and Dennis, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.