UNITED sTAT`Es DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT oF coLUMBiA SIQING WANG, Plaintiff, V' Case No. l:l6-cv-0]963 (TNM) UNITED sTATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION sERVICES, er aL, n Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Siqing Wang challenges the manner in which the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services handled her 1-526 immigrant visa petition Her suit names four defendants: the United States Citizenship` and Immigration Services; Jeh Johnson, former S-ecretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Leon Rodn`guez`, Director of the United States Citizenship and lmmigration Seri'ices§ and Julia Harrison, Acting Chief of the Immigrant lnvestor Program. Currently before me is Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdi@tion and, With respect to some of Plaintift’ s arguments, for failure to state a claim. ' . Because'the Distri'ct Court for the D-istrict of Columbia has subject matter jurisdiction to review _the actions that Plaintiff challenges,`the motion to dismiss is DENIED in part. However, because _ the complaint does not adequately state a claim With regard to the denial ofl’laintift`s motion to reopen or reconsider, the motion-to dismiss is GRANTEI_) in part and Pl_aintift’s claims concerning that motion are DISMISSED Without prejudice I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff`s complaint alleges that she is a 23-year~old graduate student who wishes to become a permanent resident of the United States.l Accordingly, Plaintiff invested $500§000 in an American business, believing that this investment would make her eligible for permanent residency under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5). The $500,()00 Were proceeds of a loan secured by property that Plaintiff owned jointly with her father. Although she only held a 50% interest in the property, her father gave her his half of the loan proceeds as a gift. Plaintiff took the funds and invested them in an Arnerican business inl 2014. Plaintiff then filed rml-526 visa petition On October 5, 2015, the United States Citizenship and lmmigration Services (USCIS) approved the petition, concluding that she satisfied the requirements for an EB-$ immigrant investor -visa. However, the USCIS initiated revocation proceedings less than two months later. On December 3, 2015, it sent her a Notice of Intent to Revol<e (NOIR). The NOIR stated that Section 1153(b)(5)’s requirement of a SSO0,000 ' investment of capital is a requirement that the investor put $`500,000 of her own capital at risk. Because Plaintiff’ s investment consisted of loan proceeds and she did not own $500,000 worth `of the property used to secure the loan, USCIS took the position that she had not invested sufficient capital to satisfy Section 1153(b)(5). -Plaintif`f responded by repeating her prior representation that her father had gifted her his share of the loan proceeds, so that all the capital she invested Was her own. However, the USCIS'issued a decision on F'ebruary i, 2016, 7 1' Because this case is before me 0n a motion _to dismiss, l accept the factual statements in Plaintiff’s complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in her favor for purposes of_ this opinion. -See Covaa’ Commc 'ns Co. v. BeHArl. Corp., 398 F.3d 666, 67l ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals