Yafai v. Cuccinelli

Background

Suaad Yafai, Helmi Mohammed Alqutaibi, and Alqutaibi’s minor daughter, S.A., sued officials and agencies of the federal government. Yafai, a United States citizen, filed an I-130 petition and an I-485 application for Alqutaibi, and an I-130 petition for S.A. An I-130 petition seeks classification of a qualifying relative for an immigrant visa; an I-485 application seeks adjustment to lawful permanent resident status.

At a March 14, 2019, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) interview, immigration officer Bayoumi asked questions that the plaintiffs described as unusually broad and unrelated to the marriage or applications. Their attorney, Darilyn Octave, asked that the interview be postponed until the plaintiffs’ primary attorney, Julie Goldberg, returned. The interview ended before completion. USCIS later denied the petitions, stating that the plaintiffs had terminated the interview and failed to provide testimony needed to resolve material questions.

The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction—an emergency court order issued before final judgment—requiring the defendants to reverse the denials of the I-130 petitions and vacate the denial of the I-485 application.

Legal standard

Because the requested injunction would change the existing situation and provide substantially all of the requested relief, the court applied a heightened standard. The plaintiffs had to make a clear or substantial showing that they were likely to succeed on their claims, make a strong showing of irreparable harm, and show that the public interest favored the injunction.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged irreparable harm because they claimed an ongoing violation of constitutional rights. The court also noted that their delay in filing the lawsuit did not defeat that showing on the record before it.

The court nevertheless found that the plaintiffs had not shown a clear likelihood of success. On their Administrative Procedure Act claim, the plaintiffs argued that USCIS failed to follow its own procedures during the interview and should have provided another interview with Goldberg present. The court stated that the record did not provide enough information to evaluate most of the questions asked. It also concluded that USCIS relied on the plaintiffs’ decision to stop the interview, not merely on the questions themselves, and that the governing regulations allowed denial when an applicant failed to provide required testimony or evidence. The plaintiffs had not identified a rule requiring USCIS to stop and reschedule an interview after it had begun because counsel believed she could not adequately represent them.

On procedural due process, the court assumed without deciding that the plaintiffs had a protected liberty or property interest in the adjudication of their petitions. It nonetheless found that they had not shown inadequate procedures. They had received advance notice, appeared at the interview with counsel, and had an opportunity to be heard. The court found no showing that due process required USCIS to provide another interview with a different lawyer.

On equal protection, the plaintiffs argued that the denials were based on race or national origin and relied on the interview’s alleged harshness and an alleged policy of more closely examining Yemeni applicants. The court found no meaningful evidence of discriminatory intent and no reason to conclude that those alleged actions, rather than the early termination of the interview, caused the denials.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 7. The order addressed the request for preliminary relief; it did not order USCIS to approve the applications.