Case: 19-11511 Date Filed: 04/01/2020 Page: 1 of 11 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-11511 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cv-62522-WPD MARLLANTAS, INC., US MAR INVESTMENTS, LLC, OSCAR ORLANDO MAYORGA RAMOS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus DIRECTOR LEON RODRIGUEZ, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his official capacity, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (April 1, 2020) Case: 19-11511 Date Filed: 04/01/2020 Page: 2 of 11 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Marllantas, Inc. (“Marllantas”), a Guatemalan company, US Mar Investments, LLC (“Mar”), a United States-based subsidiary of Marllantas, and Oscar Orlando Mayorga Ramos, an employee of Marllantas and Guatemalan citizen, appeal (1) the district court’s summary judgment order upholding the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’s (“USCIS”) denial of a visa for Ramos and (2) the district court’s denial of their cross-motion to set aside USCIS’s order denying the visa. On appeal, the plaintiffs (collectively “Marllantas”) first argue that the certified administrative record (“CAR”) was incomplete and that the district court erred in failing to order USCIS to supplement the record with documents pertaining to its decision to reopen the visa petition after initially denying it. Marllantas further argues that USCIS’s denial of its visa petition was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and that USCIS violated the Due Process Clause by holding it to a higher burden of proof than permitted by statute. We will address each point in turn. I We review a district court’s discovery determinations regarding expansion of an administrative record for abuse of discretion. See Preserve Endangered 2 Case: 19-11511 Date Filed: 04/01/2020 Page: 3 of 11 Areas of Cobb’s History, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 87 F.3d 1242, 1246– 47 (11th Cir. 1996) (“PEACH”) (holding that the district court “did not abuse its discretion by granting a protective order prohibiting any discovery” beyond the administrative record); see also Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coal. v. Kempthorne, 477 F.3d 1250, 1262 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that the “district court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing . . . discovery” beyond the administrative record). “The focal point for judicial review of an administrative agency’s action should be the administrative record.” PEACH, 87 F.3d at 1246. The agency must produce a complete record for the court to review. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 419–20 (1971), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 104–07 (1977). “Though certain circumstances may justify the district court going beyond the administrative record, it is not generally empowered to do so.” Kempthorne, 477 F.3d at 1262. This “principle reflects the recognition that further judicial inquiry into executive motivation represents a substantial intrusion into the workings of another branch of Government and should normally be avoided.” Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2573 (2019) (quotation marks and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals