Okolie et al v. Collett et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 10/26/12. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BENJAMIN CHIDUM OKOLIE, et al., :
Plaintiffs,

:

v.

:

GREGORY COLLETT, et al.,

:

Defendants.

Civil Action No. GLR-12-663

:
MEMORANDUM OPINION

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss

Plaintiffs’

Complaint

with

prejudice,

pursuant

to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a
claim

upon

which

relief

can

be

granted.

(ECF

No.

13).

Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks review of Defendant U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services’ (“USCIS”) denial, and the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance, of Plaintiff Teesha Ann
Okolie’s Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative.

The issues

have been fully briefed and no hearing is deemed necessary.
Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2011).

See

For the reasons that follow,

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
I.

BACKGROUND1

The facts of this case span an approximately twenty-year
period

1

and

include

three

separate

submissions

of

Form

I-130

Unless otherwise indicated, the factual allegations in
this section are taken from the Complaint and accepted as true
for the purpose of this Motion.

Petitions

(“Petition”),

filed

on

Plaintiff

Benjamin

Chidum

Okolie’s behalf.
Mr. Okolie, a native and citizen of Nigeria, first entered
the United States on September 1, 1990, via tourist visa.
June 26, 1992, he married Kathleen Murphy.
Murphy

filed

the

first

Petition

on

On

On July 6, 1992, Ms.
Mr.

Okolie’s

behalf.

Approximately six months later, however, on January 29, 1993,
Ms.

Murphy

withdrew

the

Petition

and

submitted

an

affidavit

stating, inter alia, that she married Mr. Okolie in exchange for
money so he could obtain a green card.

The two were divorced on

September 7, 1993.
On October 30, 1993, Mr. Okolie married Teesha Ann Okolie.
On February 16, 1994, Mrs. Okolie submitted the second Petition
filed on Mr. Okolie’s behalf, but it was ultimately denied on
September 16, 1999, because of Ms. Murphy’s contention that her
marriage to Mr. Okolie was fraudulent.

Mrs. Okolie filed a

timely

on

because

appeal,
she

which

failed

the
to

BIA

dismissed

properly

supplement

April
the

30,

record

2001,
with

additional evidence as requested by the district director.
Prior to the 1999 denial, Ms. Murphy submitted a written
statement to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”)
on October 18, 1995, reiterating the assertion that her marriage
to Mr. Okolie was not bona fide.
Ex. C, ECF No. 13-6).

(See Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss

This statement was submitted in response
2

to the INS’ request that Ms. Murphy respond to Mr. Okolie’s
claim that she allegedly admitted to lying to the immigration
board regarding the status of their marriage, but did not want
to recant her previous statement for fear of being charged with
perjury.

Additionally, Ms. Murphy submitted an October 17, 1995

statement

from

her

friend,

Melissa

Shultz,

corroborating

Murphy’s claim that the marriage was not bona fide.

Ms.

(See Defs.’

Mot. to Dismiss Ex. D, ECF No. 13-7).
The third and final Petition, filed on July 14, 2000, is
the triggering event that led to the pending action.

Subsequent

to the filing of that Petition, the INS issued a notice of
intent

to

deny

(“NOID”)

the

Petition

on

December

2,

2002,

because the Plaintiffs failed to establish that Mr. Okolie’s
marriage to Ms. Murphy was bona fide.

(See Defs.’ Mot. to

Dismiss

response,

Ex.

I,

ECF

No.

13-12).

In

Plaintiffs

supplemented the record with documents, photographs, affidavits,
and a statement contending that Ms. Murphy lacked credibility
and had a motive to provide false information to the INS.
Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Ex. J, at 1, ECF No. 13-13).2

(See
After

determining that several of the submissions were duplicates and
concluding that the new evidence failed to prove the Okolie-

2

All page numbers cited in this Memorandum Opinion refer to
the pages on the actual documents, not the ECF page numbers.
3

Murphy

marriage

was

not

a

sham,

however,

USCIS3

denied

the

Petition on February 18, 2005.
On March 18, 2005, Mrs. Okolie filed an appeal with the
BIA.

Her appeal averred that USCIS’ reliance upon the October

1995

written

statements

of

Ms.

Murphy

and

Ms.

Shultz

was

improper because neither she nor Mr. Okolie had an opportunity
to

review

and

rebut

the

statements.4

While

the

appeal

was

pending, Mrs. Okolie filed a motion to remand on January 23,
2006,

based

evidence.

upon
To

the

that

attainment
motion,

Mrs.

of

previously

Okolie

undiscoverable

attached

the

sworn

affidavits of Angela Williams Nelson and Janice Miles, both of
whom swore that the Okolie-Murphy marriage was bona fide.
Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Ex. K, ECF No. 13-14).

(See

On February 28,

2006, the BIA granted Mrs. Okolie’s motion and remanded the case
to USCIS for further investigation.
After a brief August 30, 2007 interview and December 5,
2007 e-mail attempting to schedule an additional interview that
never materialized, the USCIS issued a second NOID on July 8,
2009.

In that NOID, USCIS concluded that the Nelson and Miles

3

On March 1, 2003, the INS was transferred to the
Department of Homeland Security.
Thereafter, the USCIS was
tasked with administering services and benefits under the
immigration laws.
See Delegations of Authority Regarding
Immigration Laws, 68 Fed.Reg. 10,922 (Mar. 6, 2003) (codified at
8 C.F.R. pts. 1, 2, 103, 239).
4
This opportunity was later provided in August 2009. (See
Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Ex. P, at 11).
4

affidavits failed to establish that the Okolie-Murphy marriage
was bona fide because the affiants waited over ten years to
submit their affidavits without explanation, failed to provide
contact

information

for

verification,

and

information during the appeals process.
Dismiss Ex. L, at 9, ECF No. 13-15).
Plaintiffs

failed

to

provide

revealed

the

(See Defs.’ Mot. to

USCIS further noted that

evidence

that

impeached

Ms.

Murphy’s credibility and that Ms. Murphy had not contacted the
agency in an attempt to retract her prior statements.

On August

4, 2009, Mr. Okolie submitted a letter to the USCIS challenging
the

agency’s

tendency

to

make

credibility

determinations

in

favor of Ms. Murphy over numerous sworn affidavits submitted on
his behalf.
On October 2, 2009, USCIS denied Mrs. Okolie’s Petition.
In the fourteen-page denial letter, USCIS fully explained the
basis of its denial, including individual explanations for each
piece

of

Petition.
not

based

evidence

Plaintiffs

submitted

in

support

of

their

USCIS continually reiterated that its decision was
solely

upon

the

statements

Shultz, but the entire record.

of

Ms.

Murphy

and

Ms.

Specifically, the letter states

that the “Service concedes that [the Murphy-Shultz statements]
alone,

do

not

provide

substantial

and

probative

evidence

of

marriage fraud; however, their statements coupled with the lack
of documentation of bona fides, does show that the marriage was
5

sham [sic].”

(Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Ex. P, at 13, ECF No. 13-

19) (emphasis in original).
affidavits

submitted

by

Moreover, the agency noted that the

the

Okolie’s

“[lacked]

corroborative

evidence to support the claims made therein and some contain[ed]
contradictions amongst the statements made by [Mr. Okolie], Ms.
Murphy, and Ms. Shultz.”

(Id.)

After Mrs. Okolie filed a

timely appeal, the BIA affirmed the USCIS denial on May 13,
2011.
On March 1, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the instant Complaint
for

Declaratory

and

Injunctive

Relief

seeking

to

declare

unlawful and set aside the October 2, 2009 USCIS denial and May
13, 2011 BIA affirmance of Mrs. Okolie’s Petition.5
The

Complaint

Petition.

also

seeks

an

order

approving

(ECF No. 1).
Mrs.

Okolie’s

Defendants filed the pending Motion to Dismiss on

July 5, 2012, and Plaintiffs filed an Opposition on September 6,
2012.

(ECF Nos. 13, 16).

24, 2012.

Defendants filed a Reply on September

(ECF No. 17).

5

Defendants argue that a six-year statute of limitations
precludes Plaintiffs from challenging the 1999 INS denial and
2001 BIA affirmance.
(Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 19).
The
Complaint, however, is clear that Plaintiffs only seek relief as
to the 2009 USCIS denial and 2011 BIA affirmance.
Therefore,
the Court will not address this argument.
6

II.
A.

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review
Defendants

have

moved

to

dismiss

Plaintiffs’

Complaint

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

According

to Defendants, Plaintiffs cannot state a viable claim for relief
because they failed to show that USCIS acted in an arbitrary or
capricious manner.
“[T]he purpose of Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency
of

a

complaint

and

not

to

resolve

contests

surrounding

the

facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.”
Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir.
2006)

(internal

quotation

marks

and

alterations

omitted)

(quoting Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th
Cir. 1999)).

When ruling on such a motion, the court must

“accept the well-pled allegations of the complaint as true,” and
“construe the facts and reasonable inferences derived therefrom
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”

Ibarra v. U.S.,

120 F.3d 472, 474 (4th Cir. 1997).
To survive a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations of
a complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative

level,

.

allegations

in

complaint

fact).”
(internal

the

.

.

on

the
are

assumption

true

(even

that
if

all

doubtful

the
in

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
citations

and

alterations
7

omitted).

Thus,

the

plaintiff’s obligation is to set forth sufficiently the “grounds
of his entitlement to relief,” offering more than “labels and
conclusions.”

Id.

(internal quotation marks and alterations

omitted).
The district court’s review of agency decisions is governed
by the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C.A. § 706(2)
(West

2012),

which

favor of the agency.

is

highly

deferential

and

presumptive

in

See Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma

Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 192 (4th Cir. 2009).

Under the APA, the

Court’s review is “usually limited to determining whether [the]
agency action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 77 (2002).

United States v.

This limitation illustrates that

the scope of the Court’s review is “narrow and a court is not to
substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”

Motor Vehicle

Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463
U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
“satisfactory
rational
made.”

The agency, however, must articulate a

explanation”

connection

between

for
the

its

decision,

facts

found

“including

and

the

a

choice

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Thus, the “agency action will stand if the record reveals a
rational basis for the decision.”
at *2 (4th Cir. Mar. 29, 1999).

8

Oddo v. Reno, 1999 WL 170173,

B.

Analysis
Upon review of the record, the Court finds a rational basis

exists

for

Okolie’s

the

USCIS

Petition.

denial,

and

Therefore,

BIA

affirmance,

Plaintiffs’

of

Complaint

Mrs.

will

be

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
Section

204(c)

of

the

Immigration

and

Nationality

Act

requires the USCIS to deny a visa petition when the beneficiary
was

previously

relationship

for

determined

to

fraudulent

have

entered

purposes.

8

into

U.S.C.A.

a

marital

§

1154(c)

(West 2012); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.2 (2007) (“Section 204(c)
of the Act prohibits the approval of a visa petition filed on
behalf of an alien who has attempted or conspired to enter into
a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.”).
During the agency investigation, the Petitioner, Mrs. Okolie,
bore

the

burden

of

establishing,

by

a

preponderance

evidence, eligibility for the benefit sought.

of

the

Matter of Patel,

19 I. & N. Dec. 774, 781-82 (BIA 1988).
This burden included establishing that the Okolie-Murphy
marriage was not a sham.
803 (BIA 1988).

See Matter of Kahy, 19 I. & N. Dec.

Central to the question of marital validity is

an inquiry into whether the couple intended to establish a life
together, which is evidenced by their actions after the union.
Matter of Patel, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 784-85.
9

To support their

bona

fide

marriage

claim,

Plaintiffs

amount of documents including:

submitted

a

substantial

statements from Mr. and Mrs.

Okolie, affidavits swearing to the bona fides of the OkolieMurphy

marriage,

the

Okolie-Murphy

marriage

certificate,

photographs, joint apartment agreements, a credit application,
and bank statements, among other things.
In their Opposition, Plaintiffs aver that USCIS based its
decision on the “derogatory,” “uncorroborated,” and “unreliable”
written

statements

contradicted

by

of

Ms.

Murphy

approximately

submitted by the Plaintiffs.

and

Ms.

thirteen

Shultz,
sworn

which

are

affidavits

(Pls.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to

Dismiss at 5).

According to Plaintiffs, USCIS’ failure to offer

a

explanation

reasonable

statements

and

evidence

why

it

assigned

supporting

a

credibility

finding

of

constitutes a failure of the rational basis test.

to

fraud

Throughout

their Complaint and Opposition Plaintiffs intimate that USCIS
had an agenda against Mr. Okolie and are resolute on ensuring
that their determination regarding the Okolie-Murphy marriage is
not disturbed.
The October 2, 2009 USCIS denial (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss
Ex.

P),

as

well

as

each

of

the

previous

denials

and

NOIDs

provided in the record (See Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Exs. B, E-F,
I-J,

L,

regarding

Q),
the

however,
agency’s

provide

several

credibility
10

reasoned

explanations

determinations

and

the

perceived deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ document submissions.

The

running

the

theme

amongst

the

agency’s

decisions

is

that

affidavits Plaintiffs submitted either lacked corroboration by
historical evidence, provided contradictory accounts of events,
or lacked credibility.

For example, the agency specifically

notes that it did not dispute the incident recalled in Yvonne
Stewart’s affidavit may have occurred, but averred that because
Ms. Stewart’s account of that day differed from the accounts of
Ms. Murphy and Mr. Okolie, her claim was not credible.
Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Ex. P, at 3-5).

(See

The agency also found

that Larina Mouzon’s affidavit could serve the dual purpose of
supporting both parties’ accounts of the marriage.

(Id.

at 10-

11).
In the July 8, 2009 NOID, the agency noted that many of the
affidavits submitted were duplicates of those submitted by Ms.
Murphy when she submitted a Petition on Mr. Okolie’s behalf.
(See Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Ex. L, at 5).

With that in mind,

the agency indicated that “any documentation that is identical
to

the

documentation

submitted

in

support

of

[Ms.

Murphy’s]

petition is considered suspect, as it may have been fabricated
in order to create the facade that she and the beneficiary were
in a bona fide marriage.”
Moreover,

the

(Id.)

agency

explained

that,

aside

from

the

affidavits, many of the documents presented failed to establish
11

the validity of the Okolie-Murphy marriage.

In the October 2,

2009 denial, USCIS addressed why evidence of auto insurance, car
purchases,

debt

clearance,

photographs,

joint

apartment

agreements, and utility statements, among other things, failed
to

establish

the

bona

fides

of

the

Okolie-Murphy

(Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Ex. P, at 5-12).

marriage.

For example, the

agency noted that a review of the receipt for the purchase of a
1988 Toyota Supra failed to show that both Mr. Okolie and Ms.
Murphy purchased the vehicle.

(Id. at 6). Additionally, the

agency was unable to confirm that the female in one of the
photographs Plaintiffs submitted was Ms. Murphy because her back
was to the camera.

(Id. at 7).

The agency also found that

Plaintiffs’ submission of a credit application failed to show
the two actually obtained credit together.

(Id. at 9).

Finally, as to the agency’s reliance upon the statements of
Ms. Murphy and Ms. Shultz, the agency specifically stated that
it did not rely solely upon the Murphy-Shultz statements in
reaching its decision, but upon the record as a whole.
Mot. to Dismiss Ex. P, at 13).
denial

letter

provides

reasoned

(Defs.’

Moreover, the October 2, 2009
explanations

as

to

why

the

agency found these two individuals credible.
First, USCIS concluded that the evidence of auto insurance
failed to support or destroy the bona fides of the marriage, but
corroborated Ms. Shultz’s affidavit contending that Mr. Okolie
12

and Ms. Murphy planned to apply both names to bills in support
of

their

goal

to

present

the

fraudulent

(Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Ex. P, at 5).

marriage

as

valid.

Second, USCIS concluded

that Ms. Murphy listed Ms. Schultz as a reference on the Ford
Motor
friends

Credit

application,

during

the

which

Okolie-Murphy

Schultz’s credibility.

(Id. at 7).

demonstrated

the

marriage

supported

and

two

were
Ms.

Third, the agency concluded

that the August 7, 2009 affidavit of Janice Miles and Angela
Williams directly contradicted the assertions made by Ms. Murphy
and Ms. Schultz, finding that, in light of the contradiction,
USCIS would look to other evidence in the record.

(Id. at 8).

Later in the denial letter, the agency noted that the statements
of

Ms.

Murphy

and

Ms.

Shultz,

“coupled

with

the

lack

of

documentation of bona fides, does show that the marriage was
sham [sic].”

(Id. at 13).

Fourth, USCIS concluded that the

joint apartment agreements, coupled with information that the
apartment contained two bedrooms, increased the plausibility of
Ms.

Murphy’s

statement

that

the

couple

“lived

together

but

maintained separate lives and were dating and bringing other
people to the apartment.”

(Id.)

Fifth, the agency concluded

that Ms. Murphy’s submission of letters from Peoples Bank of
Oxford, Pennsylvania and Signet Bank supported the finding that
there “was no commingling of assets and liabilities but rather .

13

. . a deviation of assets.”

(Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Ex. P, at

9) (emphasis in original).
The agency also addressed Plaintiffs’ assertions that Ms.
Murphy did not want to recant her previous statements for fear
of perjury.

To that end, the agency found that the record

contained no evidence of any INS or USCIS threats of perjury or
attempts by Ms. Murphy to retract either of her statements.
(Id. at 12).
The record is replete with evidence that USCIS provided
reasoned

explanations

determinations.
agency

of

each

After

considering

that

Plaintiffs

concluded

validity

for

the

Okolie-Murphy

of

all

of

failed

its

evidentiary

the

evidence,

the

to

establish

the

marriage.

Plaintiffs’

disagreement with how the agency reached its conclusion does not
overshadow the fact that USCIS provided a rational explanation
for its decision, which was supported by the record.

Moreover,

the Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of USCIS.

See

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc., 463 U.S. at 43.
III. CONCLUSION
Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, USCIS did not act in an
arbitrary

or

capricious

manner

because

it

provided

explanation for each of its evidentiary determinations.

an
The

record, in its entirety, illustrates the thought process behind
USCIS’ determination that Plaintiffs’ affidavits and documents
14

failed

to

establish

the

bona

fides

of

the

Okolie-Murphy

marriage.
Accordingly,
(ECF No. 13).

Defendants’

Motion

to

Dismiss

is

GRANTED.

A separate Order will issue.

Entered this 26th day of October, 2012

__________/s/_______________
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge

15