Mohammed Mohammed Almasmari and Mulook Mohamed Atiq Almasmari v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted defendants’ motion to dismiss a complaint challenging the denial of an I-130 immigrant visa petition and alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and Equal Protection Clause. The court held that plaintiffs had not plausibly shown that the agency’s decision was arbitrary or capricious, had not adequately pleaded discriminatory treatment, and lacked standing to pursue a broader challenge to alleged Yemen-specific adjudication procedures. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs failed to state a plausible APA claim because Mohammed bore the burden of establishing eligibility and the agency rationally determined, based on the evidence submitted and the unanswered requests for proof of Yemeni law and contemporaneous divorce evidence, that he had not established the legal termination of his first marriage.
2. Plaintiffs failed to state a plausible equal protection claim because they did not identify similarly situated petitioners who were treated differently or plead facts supporting an inference that the denial resulted from discriminatory animus.
3. Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to pursue their broad challenge to alleged Yemeni-specific adjudication policies because they did not plausibly connect the denial of their petition to those policies, and a favorable judgment would not necessarily redress an independent failure to establish eligibility.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged that USCIS and the BIA acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law in denying the I-130 petition based on insufficient proof of the legal termination of Mohammed's first marriage.
2. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged an Equal Protection Clause violation by failing to identify similarly situated non-Yemeni petitioners treated differently or facts supporting discriminatory animus.
3. Whether plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek broad declaratory relief against alleged Yemeni-specific USCIS policies and procedures when they did not connect the denial of their petition to those policies and could remain ineligible on an independent evidentiary ground.

Disposition

dismissed