Singh v. Garland

Singh · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · March 10, 2023 · No. No. 1:22-cv-00502-ADA-CDB

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Shamsher Singh’s challenge to the denial of an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative. The court rejected the claims that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, violated applicable immigration regulations concerning DNA evidence, or denied procedural due process.

Holdings

  1. The BIA's decision affirming denial of the I-130 petition was not arbitrary and capricious because the agency reasonably applied the governing statutory and regulatory requirements and provided a rational explanation for finding Singh's evidence insufficient.
  2. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(2)(vi) does not require USCIS to give a petitioner an opportunity to submit DNA testing after all other evidence has been considered and found insufficient. The regulation limits when the agency may require blood testing, while leaving the decision whether to request additional evidence to agency discretion.
  3. The BIA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by rejecting Singh's claim that USCIS departed from a settled policy of allowing DNA evidence after other evidence proved inconclusive.
  4. Singh had a protected interest in adjudication of his I-130 petition, but USCIS and the BIA provided constitutionally adequate procedural protections and did not violate his Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the BIA's affirmance of USCIS's denial of Singh's I-130 petition was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
  2. Whether 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(2)(vi) required USCIS to provide Singh an additional opportunity to submit DNA or blood-group testing after considering other evidence.
  3. Whether USCIS and the BIA violated Singh's procedural due process rights by failing to provide more specific instructions in the request for evidence and by denying an additional opportunity to submit evidence.
  4. Whether the court should remand or reopen the petition to permit submission of DNA evidence.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (30)

  • United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 705-06 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • In re Rothery, 143 F.3d 546, 549 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 861 F.3d 853, 864 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 255 (1993)(followed)
  • Brownell v. Ketcham Wire & Manufacturing Co., 211 F.2d 121, 128 (9th Cir. 1954)(followed)
  • Naiker v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services, 352 F. Supp. 3d 1067, 1072, 1074 (W.D. Wash. 2018)(followed)
  • Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 18 F.3d 1468, 1471-72, 1478 (9th Cir. 1994)(followed)
  • Tang v. District Director of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 298 F. Supp. 413, 417 (C.D. Cal. 1969), aff'd, 433 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1970)(followed)
  • Amar v. Mayorkas, No. CV216752CBMADSX, 2022 WL 18228254, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2022)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 30.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…