Gomez Rosario v. Mayorkas

Background

USCIS found Luis Alberto Gomez Rosario ineligible for U nonimmigrant status, commonly called a U visa. Gomez and his wife, Juana Maria Olivares Angel, sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, asking the court to set aside the USCIS decision and send the matter back for further consideration.

In 2014, Gomez was working at a Shell gas station when Juan Galvez punched him in the face after Gomez refused to sell him alcohol. Gomez pushed Galvez away, and Galvez later left the store. Police arrested Galvez and documented the incident as battery, public intoxication, and a probation violation. Gomez cooperated with the investigation.

The U-visa statute covers victims of certain crimes who suffered substantial physical or mental abuse, possess information about the crime, and were helpful or likely to be helpful to law enforcement or prosecutors. One listed qualifying crime is felonious assault; the statute also covers attempts to commit listed crimes. Applicants must establish that they meet the eligibility requirements, and USCIS must consider credible evidence relevant to the petition.

Gomez submitted a certification from the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office identifying aggravated battery under California Penal Code § 243(d) and stating that Gomez had been punched and injured. The certification also stated that he had no documented physical injuries. Gomez described bleeding and soreness after the punch and submitted a mental-health evaluation diagnosing post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.

USCIS initially placed Gomez’s petition on a waiting list because the annual limit for U-1 status had been reached. USCIS later denied Gomez’s petition and Angel’s related petition, concluding that the evidence showed an investigation of ordinary battery under California Penal Code § 242, not aggravated battery under § 243(d), and did not establish the required level of injury or force. After the plaintiffs sought reopening or reconsideration, the District Attorney’s Office submitted a new certification identifying attempted assault under California Penal Code § 245(a)(4), which concerns force likely to produce great bodily injury. USCIS reopened the matter but denied the applications again.

The Parties’ Arguments

The plaintiffs raised two principal challenges. First, they argued that USCIS improperly relied on the police report’s description of the crime while giving too little weight to the Form I-918B certification. Second, they argued that USCIS never analyzed the § 245(a)(4) charge identified in the later certification. The plaintiffs also argued that USCIS acted arbitrarily by denying the petition after previously granting deferred action, but the court did not separately decide that issue because it found the denial improper on other grounds.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Alternatively, they moved for summary judgment affirming USCIS’s decision. The plaintiffs filed their own motion for summary judgment based on the administrative record.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that summary judgment is the appropriate procedure for reviewing a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court’s review was limited to whether USCIS acted arbitrarily or capriciously, abused its discretion, violated a legal requirement, or reached a decision unsupported by substantial evidence.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that USCIS applied a rule requiring the first responding officer to recognize the qualifying crime. The court found that USCIS gave substantial weight to the District Attorney’s certification but also evaluated the statute identified in the police report, the statute listed on the certification, and the descriptions of what happened. According to the court, USCIS did not rely on the police report to the exclusion of the certification.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs’ second argument. After the later certification identified attempted assault under § 245(a)(4), USCIS’s appellate decision never mentioned that statute. The court held that USCIS could not rely on its earlier discussion of whether the incident was likely to produce great bodily injury because the earlier decision had not specifically addressed § 245(a)(4).

The court also held that, even if USCIS could rely on the earlier decision, that decision did not explain the connection between the facts and the conclusion that the incident was not likely to produce great bodily injury. The record included facts that could bear on that question, including Galvez’s larger size, his repeated lunges, the force that caused Gomez to stumble backward, and Gomez’s soreness for several days. USCIS did not analyze those facts and instead stated the conclusion without adequate explanation. The court therefore found that USCIS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Ruling and Disposition

The court GRANTED the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and DENIED the defendants’ motions. It remanded the case to USCIS to determine whether Gomez meets the statutory eligibility requirements and whether to exercise discretion to grant or deny U nonimmigrant status. The order states that it disposes of Docket No. 12.