Chuil Chulin v. Zuchowski

Background

The plaintiff entered the United States without permission in 2003. The government later began removal proceedings against him. In 2014, he was the victim of an aggravated assault and cooperated with police. He then applied for a U visa, a form of immigration status available to certain crime victims who assist law enforcement.

The plaintiff met the requirements for a U visa except admissibility. He therefore also filed an application asking USCIS to waive the inadmissibility requirement. The opinion says that he had been arrested in connection with rape and attempted sodomy charges in 2012 and misdemeanor domestic-violence charges in 2013, but that the charges were dismissed and he had no criminal convictions.

USCIS denied the waiver and the U visa. In its decision, USCIS considered information from police reports about the plaintiff’s arrests and concluded that his history showed a pattern of disregard for U.S. law and a potential risk to others. The plaintiff alleged that he did not have the police reports during the USCIS proceedings and was not given an opportunity to respond to the information in them.

Claims and Motion

The plaintiff sued the USCIS decisionmaker, the acting USCIS director, and USCIS. He alleged that the denials were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process.

The government moved to dismiss. It argued that the decision to waive inadmissibility was discretionary and therefore generally could not be reviewed. The court considered the government’s jurisdictional argument and the pleading standards for a claim that can proceed under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court recognized that the statutes generally restrict judicial review of discretionary immigration decisions. It also explained that courts may review legal questions and colorable constitutional claims—claims with at least some possible validity—even when the underlying immigration decision is discretionary.

The court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged such claims. USCIS could consider the plaintiff’s immigration file, including police reports, but the plaintiff alleged that USCIS relied on uncorroborated information in those reports, gave that information significant weight, and did not allow him to rebut it before deciding his application. The court cited agency rules requiring notice and an opportunity to respond when an adverse decision relies on derogatory information the applicant does not know about.

The court also relied on binding administrative precedent stating that an arrest report generally should not receive substantial weight without a conviction or corroborating evidence when the applicant admits the arrest but denies wrongdoing and prosecution was declined. The court distinguished a Ninth Circuit decision involving a conviction and an opportunity to present mitigating information, finding the circumstances alleged here materially different.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to dismiss and stated that this disposed of ECF No. 25. The opinion did not finally decide whether USCIS’s waiver denial violated the Administrative Procedure Act or the Fifth Amendment; it decided only that the plaintiff plausibly pleaded claims that could be reviewed and could proceed beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage.