SINGH v. HOLDER et al

Filing 17

ORDER THAT THE COURT ASKS COUNSEL TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUES AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 12/2/2015. 12/3/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TAJINDER SINGH
v.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-7063

ERIC HOLDER, et al.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2015, following oral argument on December 1,
2015, the Court asks counsel to respond to the following issues:
1.

Did the Government ever give notice, prior to the decision of June 30, 2011, that

it was proceeding on a theory that the marriage was fraudulent ab initio, i.e., that the marriage
was a “sham”?
2.

Does the record show why there was a delay from the time Plaintiff’s decedent

wife Tracey Denise Smith (“Ms. Smith”) submitted her Form I-130 on February 7, 2007 and the
July 20, 2007 interview until the notice of intent to deny (the “NOID”) issued on June 30, 2011?
3.

Does the record show that either Plaintiff or Ms. Smith was on notice of any kind

of investigation prior to receiving the NOID issued on June 30, 2011?
4.

How should the Court review the final decision considering that the Government

concedes that Plaintiff and Ms. Smith were legally married under Pennsylvania law and that the
decision focused on the personal aspects of the couple’s married life some years after they were
married?
a.

Is the decision of the United States Citizens and Immigration Service valid

given both the personal nature of a married relationship and the fact that the agency’s
investigation continued some four to five years after Plaintiff and Ms. Smith were legally
married?

b.

Is due process violated where the same agency which does the

investigation also adjudicates the issue?
4.

In view of the desire expressed by Plaintiff’s counsel to supplement the record, he

shall provide to the Government a narrative of the facts and any supporting documents within
forty-five (45) days. The Government shall promptly determine whether to stipulate to
supplementing the record.
5.

Within sixty (60) days, the stipulation or motion to supplement the record shall be

filed, together with a memorandum citing cases or other authorities on which either party relies.
The memorandum should also discuss the following issue:
a.

As recognized in Brown v. Napolitano, 391 Fed. App’x 346, 350-52 (5th

Cir. 2010), the showing required for finding a “sham” marriage is different than that required for
finding a “bona fide” marriage. There are at least two (2) cases in which a court has granted a
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the agency’s underlying finding of
marriage fraud was not supported by substantial and probative evidence, and as such was
arbitrary and capricious. See Boansi v. Johnson, No. 12-47, 2015 WL 4475704 (E.D.N.C. July
20, 2015) (granting summary judgment to plaintiff and remanding case to USCIS for readjudication of plaintiff’s petition); Delcore v. Holder, 13-8266, 2015 WL 1858363 (N.D. Ill.
Apr. 20, 2015) (granting summary judgment to plaintiffs and remanding case to USCIS for readjudication of plaintiffs’ petition).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Michael M. Baylson
_______________________________
MICHAEL M. BAYLSON, U.S.D.J.
O:\CIVIL 14\14-7063 singh v. holder\14cv7063.questions.12.1.15.doc