NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 20-2608 JUANITA MUKUI; STANLEY MUKUI Appellants v. DIRECTOR UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT; DIRECTOR UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (No: 19-cv-03249) The Honorable John M. Younge Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 18, 2021 Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER*, Senior Judge (Opinion filed: March 23, 2021) OPINION ∗∗ ∗ Honorable William B. Traxler, Jr., Senior Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation. ∗∗ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. MATEY, Circuit Judge. Stanley Mukui (“Mukui”) sought legal permanent residence in the United States. But Mukui had a previous marriage, one the BIA concluded was a sham. Mukui, and his wife Juanita, argue that BIA’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, but it was not. So we will affirm. I. BACKGROUND Mukui entered the United States in 2005 on a student visa. The year after, he married Kyeisha McNeill. In April 2007, McNeill filed a Form I-130, 1 Petition for Alien Relative on Mukui’s behalf. But shortly after, McNeill withdrew the application, and her support, in a written statement saying Mukui paid her to marry just two days after they first met (“2007 Withdrawal Statement”). 2 Mukui and McNeill divorced in December 2007. Mukui quickly remarried Juanita, a United States citizen. In 2013, Mrs. Mukui filed an I-130 petition on her husband’s behalf. But the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) bars an I-130 petition if there is “substantial and probative evidence” that the alien beneficiary has ever attempted, conspired, or entered into a marriage “for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.” INA § 204(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c); 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(1)(ii). As a result, United States Citizen and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) notified Mrs. Mukui it intended to deny her petition, citing the 2007 Withdrawal Statement 1 Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a United States citizen may file an I- 130 petition to have his or her spouse classified as an “immediate relative” of a citizen, which enables the spouse to obtain lawful permanent resident status. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 1154(a)–(b). 2 Her statement also explained the couple never lived together or consummated their marriage. It was also signed by McNeill’s lawyer. 2 as evidence of Mukui’s prior fraudulent marriage to McNeill. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(iv). The USCIS gave Mrs. Mukui a chance to rebut or refute that conclusion. See id. § 103.2(b)(16)(i). Mrs. Mukui responded with documentary evidence and affidavits, including three from McNeill recanting the 2007 Withdrawal Statement. Unpersuaded, the USCIS denied the I-130 petition. The BIA affirmed that conclusion. The BIA found that the 2007 Withdrawal Statement constituted “substantial and probative evidence” that the Mukui-McNeill marriage …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals