NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 3 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HEATHER MATTSON; ROMAN No. 17-17292 BORISOV, D.C. No. Plaintiffs-Appellants, 3:15-cv-00182-LRH-WGC v. MEMORANDUM**** CHAD WOLF*; AL GALLMANN, District Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Arizona-Nevada; JEANNE KENT, Field Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Las Vegas; NICHOLAS A. TRUTANICH**, U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada; WILLIAM P. BARR***, Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 23, 2019 San Francisco, California * Chad Wolf is the current Acting Secretary of Homeland Security and was automatically substituted as a party. Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** Nicholas A. Trutanich is the U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada and was automatically substituted as a party. Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). *** William P. Barr is the current U.S. Attorney General and was automatically substituted as a party. Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). **** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and BADE, Circuit Judges. In 2012, Heather Mattson sought to obtain citizenship for her husband, Roman Borisov, by filing an I-130 immediate relative visa petition on his behalf. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) ultimately denied the petition because it concluded that Borisov had previously entered a fraudulent marriage for the purpose of obtaining citizenship. This finding rendered Borisov statutorily ineligible for citizenship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed USCIS’s decision to deny the petition, and Mattson and Borisov (collectively, Appellants) subsequently filed this suit against USCIS and several executive branch officials. Appellants allege, inter alia, that USCIS violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and their right to procedural due process by failing to disclose the complete record that it relied upon to deny the petition. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of USCIS, and this appeal followed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse. Appellants contend that USCIS violated their procedural due process right by failing to disclose a written statement from Borisov’s ex-wife, which contained allegations that Borisov had married her solely for the purpose of obtaining citizenship. Although USCIS briefly summarized the principal allegation from the ex-wife’s statement, it provided neither a complete version to Appellants, nor any information about the form of the statement, prior to denying the petition. This 2 does not comport with procedural due process. Because the “grant of an I-130 petition for immediate relative is a nondiscretionary decision,” those who are eligible are “entitled to the protections of due process” in the adjudication of a petition. Ching v. Mayorkas, 725 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013). We employ a case-by-case analysis and balance the factors identified by the Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), to determine whether Appellants ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals