Zina v. Robinson

Background

Yamah Sackie Zina, a United States citizen residing in Minnesota, filed an immigrant-visa petition for Marie Zina, whom she adopted through the Liberian court system in September 2016. Zina filed the petition in February 2020, seeking to classify Marie as a relative of a United States citizen. USCIS denied the petition on August 25, 2021, finding insufficient evidence of Marie’s identity and of the required two years of joint residence between Zina and Marie.

Zina sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows courts to review certain federal agency actions. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the defendants also moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants argued that Zina had not exhausted available administrative remedies because she did not appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals or ask USCIS to reopen or reconsider the denial. The court held that exhaustion was not required here because the governing statute and agency rules said that an appeal “may” be filed, rather than requiring one before judicial review. The court also held that USCIS’s denial was final agency action because it completed the agency’s decision-making process and prevented Marie from being classified as Zina’s qualifying relative for immigration purposes.

The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Summary-Judgment Standard

The court reviewed USCIS’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard. Under that standard, a court must determine whether the agency examined the relevant information and gave a rational explanation connecting the facts to its decision. The court may not simply substitute its own judgment for the agency’s.

Birth-Certificate Evidence

USCIS treated Marie’s birth certificate as insufficient because it had been registered more than 13 years after her birth and because Zina did not provide a government-authority statement explaining why a timely birth certificate was unavailable.

The court held that USCIS misapplied the governing regulations. For an adopted child, the regulations require an adoption decree and evidence of at least two years of legal custody and joint residence; they do not require a birth certificate to establish the adoptive relationship. Zina had provided an adoption decree, and the parties did not dispute that she legally adopted Marie before Marie’s sixteenth birthday.

The court further held that, even if a birth certificate were relevant, USCIS did not adequately evaluate the delayed certificate in light of the other evidence, including the adoption decree, baptismal certificate, affidavits, statements from relatives, provider letters, photographs, and information about Liberia’s low birth-registration rate. The court also concluded that the regulation requiring a government statement about an unavailable record did not apply because Marie’s birth certificate existed and USCIS had not evaluated its reliability under the circumstances.

The court therefore concluded that USCIS’s denial based on the birth-certificate evidence was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Joint-Residence Evidence

The regulations required Zina to show that she and Marie had lived together for at least two years before Zina filed the petition. The relevant period was between November 2007, after Marie’s father died, and September 2010, when Zina moved to the United States.

Zina submitted statements and affidavits from herself, Marie’s biological mother, relatives, and a former neighbor, along with photographs. The court held that USCIS reasonably gave this evidence limited weight because most of it was not created at the time of the alleged shared residence, much of it was unsworn, and some statements lacked specific information or a clear account of the physical living arrangements. The photographs did not necessarily establish shared residence rather than visits.

The court also held that USCIS reasonably requested additional corroborating evidence, such as rental records, school records showing a shared address, tax records, medical records, or insurance records. Zina did not provide that type of evidence. Her own affidavit also did not clearly establish the property arrangements, the extent of her financial support and day-to-day supervision, or the physical living arrangements involving Marie and Marie’s biological mother.

The court rejected Zina’s argument that USCIS failed to account for Liberia’s lack of a formal residential-address system, explaining that this would not cure the other problems with the evidence. The court also found no basis to conclude that USCIS used the wrong evidentiary standard merely because the denial notice did not expressly identify the standard.

The court held that USCIS had a reasoned basis for finding insufficient evidence of the joint-residence requirement and that this part of the denial was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered that:

- the defendants’ motion to dismiss was DENIED; - the defendants’ alternative motion for summary judgment was GRANTED; and - Zina’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED.

The court did not address equal-protection arguments because Zina had not pleaded an equal-protection claim in her complaint. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.