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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?