Teresita Ching v. Alejandro Mayorkas
2013 WL 4007563, 725 F.3d 1149, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16316 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the government seeks to deny an I-130 immediate relative visa petition based on an adverse witness's statement that creates a determinative credibility conflict, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires that the petitioner be afforded an evidentiary hearing with the opportunity to confront and cross-examine that witness.
Facts:
- Teresita Ching, a foreign national, lawfully entered the United States and married Elden Fong, a U.S. citizen, who filed an I-130 visa petition on her behalf.
- Ching later withdrew her application for permanent residence, stating she planned to divorce Fong; the couple subsequently divorced.
- Ching then married another U.S. citizen, Brooke Joseph, who filed a new I-130 visa petition for her.
- During the investigation of Joseph's petition, USCIS officers obtained a sworn, six-sentence statement from Ching's ex-husband, Fong, admitting their marriage was a sham entered into for money.
- In response, Joseph and Ching submitted substantial contradictory evidence, including a detailed sworn declaration from Ching about the intimate nature of her relationship with Fong, photographs, joint utility bills, and an apartment lease.
Procedural Posture:
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an administrative agency, denied Brooke Joseph's I-130 petition.
- Joseph, as the petitioner, appealed the denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an administrative appellate body.
- The BIA affirmed the USCIS denial.
- Joseph and Ching filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (a federal trial court) against the government, claiming the denial violated the APA and the Due Process Clause.
- The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion.
- Joseph and Ching, as Plaintiffs-Appellants, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the denial of an I-130 visa petition, based solely on a written statement from the beneficiary's ex-spouse alleging marriage fraud, violate the petitioner's Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights when the petitioner was not given an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the ex-spouse?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomas, Circuit Judge
Yes, the denial violates the petitioner's Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights. A U.S. citizen petitioner has a constitutionally protected liberty and property interest in the adjudication of a non-discretionary I-130 visa petition. To determine what process is due, the court applied the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge. First, the private interest in marriage and family unity is exceptionally strong. Second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation is high when a decision rests entirely on the credibility of a written statement from an ex-spouse, who may be motivated by malice, without allowing for cross-examination. Third, the government's interest in preventing marriage fraud does not outweigh the minimal administrative burden of providing a hearing, a procedure already used in other immigration contexts. The balance of these factors requires an evidentiary hearing under these circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that U.S. citizen petitioners in I-130 visa proceedings have a protected due process interest in the outcome. It establishes a critical precedent that when a visa denial hinges on the credibility of an adverse witness, particularly an ex-spouse, a mere review of written documents is insufficient process. The ruling effectively mandates a higher procedural standard for the government, requiring an actual evidentiary hearing with the right of confrontation in such cases, thereby strengthening protections for petitioners against potentially biased or false accusations.
