NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 19-2617 _____________ FANTA TOURE; SAMBA DIAKITE, Appellants v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; DIRECTOR UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; CHAIRMAN BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS; DIRECTOR USCIS PHILADELPHIA FIELD OFFICE ______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2-18-cv-01889) District Judge: Hon. Michael M. Baylson ______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a): March 26, 2020 ______________ Before: JORDAN, RESTREPO, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Filed: July 7, 2020) _____________ OPINION * ______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. RESTREPO, Circuit Judge. Before us is the question of whether the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) properly denied Samba Diakite’s petition for a spousal visa on behalf of his wife, Fanta Toure, on grounds that he failed to establish that Toure was free to marry him. The District Court upheld the agency decision under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). We will affirm the District Court decision. I Toure is a native and citizen of Mali. She first entered the United States in 2000 on a B-2 tourist visa. In the application for that visa, Toure listed her last name as “Toure epouse Kone,” JA987, 992, which means “Toure, spouse of Kone.” Her husband’s name was listed as “Cheick Oumar Tidiani Kone.” JA989, 991. Seven years later, she married Diakite, a U.S. citizen. In November 2007, Diakite began the process of applying for a spousal visa on behalf of Toure (Form I-130), so she could adjust her legal status (Form I-485). Over the course of several application attempts, Toure made a series of conflicting representations regarding her marital history and status. At one point during these spousal visa proceedings, USCIS placed Toure into separate removal proceedings based on “several willful misrepresentations of material fact” that she had allegedly made in connection with her visa applications. JA396. An immigration court stayed the removal proceedings pending the conclusion of the spousal visa proceedings. 2 After USCIS denied Diakite’s fourth application for a spousal visa, Diakite and Toure appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA dismissed the appeal, noting inconsistencies in the record that failed to establish that Toure was free to marry. The couple appealed the BIA’s decision to the District Court, claiming that the agency decision was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. The court disagreed and entered summary judgment for the government. Toure and Diakite now appeal the decision of the District Court. 1 II We exercise plenary review over a district court’s grant of summary judgment in actions brought under the APA and apply the same standard that the district court was required to apply to “the underlying agency decision.” Christ the King Manor, Inc. v. Sec’y U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 730 F.3d 291, 305 (3d ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals