Arjan singh gill v. johnson (uscis aao), et al., (d.dc may 15, 2014) complaint ir 5 denied alien smuggler i-601 denied
Sandra A. Grossman
D.C. Bar No.: 489814
Christina A. Wilkes
D.C. Bar No.: 980652
Grossman Law, LLC
110 N. Washington Street, Suite 350
Rockville, MD 20850
T: (240) 403-0913
F: (240) 453-0915
E: Sandra@grossmanlawllc.com / E: Christina@grossmanlawllc.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ARJAN SINGH GILL )
115/8 Mohali Employee Co-Op Security )
Sector #68 )
Mohali, Punjab, INDIA 160062 )
SARABJEET GILL )
12830 Chandon Cross Road )
Woodbridge, VA 22193 )
) Civ. No. ____________________
) COMPLAINT FOR
) DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, Secretary ) RELIEF
U.S. Department of Homeland Security )
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Director )
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services )
RON ROSENBERG, Chief )
Administrative Appeals Office, USCIS )
Dep’t of Homeland Security )
3801 Nebraska Avenue NW )
Washington, DC 20016 )
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 19
1. Plaintiff Arjan Singh Gill (“Plaintiff Arjan Gill”) is a 69-year-old citizen of India.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved the I-130 Petition for an
Alien Relative (“I-130”) filed for Plaintiff Arjan Gill by his U.S. citizen son,
Plaintiff Sarabjeet Singh Gill (“Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill”) on June 9, 2011, which
makes Mr. Arjan Gill eligible for consular processing pursuant to 8 U.S.C
§§1201, 1202. Nevertheless, on March 12, 2012, the U.S. Consulate in New
Delhi, India denied the visa petition, finding Plaintiff Arjan Gill inadmissible to
the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(6)(C)(i), for seeking to procure
an immigration benefit by fraud or misrepresentation, as well as pursuant to 8
U.S.C. §1182(a)(6)(E), for alien smuggling.
2. On July 12, 2012, Plaintiff Arjan Gill filed an I-601 Application for a Waiver of
Grounds of Inadmissibility [hereinafter “Waiver Application”] pursuant to 8
U.S.C. §1182, for any alleged misrepresentation. (No waiver is available for the
smuggling ground of inadmissibility). In accordance with the regulations, Plaintiff
Arjan Gill submitted evidence showing that his wife, a Lawful Permanent
Resident (LPR) of the United States, would suffer “extreme hardship” if he were
not granted the waiver. In regards to the allegation that Plaintiff was involved in
alien smuggling, Plaintiff Arjan Gill submitted voluminous conclusive evidence
and legal arguments establishing that he was victimized by an alien smuggling
scheme, and was never a willing participant in such a scheme.
3. After issuing a Request for Further Evidence (RFE), which dealt solely with the
issue of extreme hardship to Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s wife, the United States
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 2 of 19
Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied the waiver application
on the grounds that Plaintiff Arjan Gill was an alien smuggler pursuant to 8
4. Plaintiff Arjan Gill appealed the decision to the USCIS Administrative Appeals
(“AAO”). On November 6, 2013, the AAO summarily dismissed
Plaintiff’s appeal, stating that he failed to overcome the alien smuggling ground
of inadmissibility. The AAO cited only to the evidence and arguments referred to
by the USCIS Service Center Director and failed to address or acknowledge any
of the voluminous, countervailing evidence submitted by Plaintiff Arjan Gill. The
AAO also failed to explain the basis for its legal conclusion that Plaintiff Arjan
Gill had committed alien smuggling.
5. Plaintiffs brings this action under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq., as the Defendants have acted in an arbitrary and capricious
manner or otherwise in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
6. Defendants’ application of the 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(6)(E) inadmissibility ground to
Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s immigrant visa application is not based on a legitimate
reason because Defendants ignored overwhelming evidence in the record which
supports a finding that Plaintiff Arjan Gill is not inadmissible. Had Defendants
properly considered the evidence presented, Plaintiffs would have obtained a
7. Plaintiffs also bring this action under the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, as Defendants’ actions unlawfully infringe on upon both Plaintiffs’
The AAO is the appellate body charged with reviewing decisions of USCIS regional service centers. 8
C.F.R. § 204.5(n)(2).
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 3 of 19
liberty interest to make personal choices with regard to marriage and family
matters, free from unjustifiable government interference.
8. The Defendants failure to adequately consider the evidence before them, and their
sole reliance on Defendants’ records only, have caused and will continue to cause
irreparable harm to Plaintiff Arjan Gill; the fact that he is unable to immigrate to
the U.S. and join his Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) wife of over 40 years
causes both him and his wife extreme hardship.
9. Due to the arbitrary and capricious decision-making of the Defendant AAO,
Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill, a U.S. citizen, is denied the benefit of the approved I-130
Petition for An Alien Relative which he filed for his father.
10. Plaintiffs seek an order overturning the AAO’s dismissal, and requiring USCIS to
re-adjudicate Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s Waiver Application taking into account the
voluminous compelling evidence submitted by Plaintiffs, which prove that
Plaintiff Arjan Gill is not an alien smuggler under 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(6)(E).
11. Plaintiff Arjan Gill is the 69-year-old beneficiary of an approved I-130 Petition
for Alien Relative filed by his U.S. Citizen son, Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill. Plaintiff
Arjan Gill has been married to Daljit Kaur Gill, a Lawful Permanent Resident
(LPR) of the United States, for more than 42 years. Together they have two adult
children, Paramjeet Singh Gill (eldest son) and Sarabjeet Gill (youngest son and
second Plaintiff in this suit).
12. Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill is a United States citizen who filed an I-130 Petition for
Alien Relative on behalf of his father, Plaintiff Arjan Gill. USCIS approved his
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 4 of 19
Petition on June 9, 2011. Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill resides in Woodbridge, Virginia
with his LPR wife and U.S. citizen child as well as his LPR mother, Daljit Kaur
13. The Defendants, Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services; and Ron Rosenberg, Chief, Administrative Appeals Office are charged
by law with the statutory and regulatory obligation to determine eligibility for I-
601 Applications for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§1103(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. §1182(i).
14. This is a civil action brought pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq., the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and 28 U.S. C. § 1331 (federal question
jurisdiction), as well 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101, et seq., the Immigration and Nationality
Act (“INA”). Original jurisdiction is vested in this Court by 8 U.S.C. § 1329
(jurisdiction of the district courts), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (civil actions against
the United States), and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory relief), to redress the
deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities secured to the Plaintiffs.
15. This Court is competent to adjudicate this case because Defendants’ decision to
apply the 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(6)(E) inadmissibility ground to Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s
immigrant visa application, and their subsequent denial of Plaintiff’s appeal was
arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with the law. 5 U.S.C.
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 5 of 19
16. In denying Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s appeal, Defendants ignored substantive evidence
of record, including a sworn confession by the individual responsible for alien
smuggling, which firmly establishes that Plaintiff Arjan Gill could not have been
inadmissible for alien smuggling.
17. By ignoring substantive evidence and deeming Plaintiff Arjan Gill inadmissible
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(6)(E) solely based on DHS records, Defendants
acted contrary to law.
18. Eight U.S.C. § 1252 does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction because the
threshold issue of whether Plaintiff Arjan Gill is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C.
§1182(a)(6)(E) for “alien smuggling,” and therefore statutorily ineligible for the I-
601 waiver he sought, is a legal question and not a discretionary determination.
Purely legal determinations remain subject to judicial review. See Office of
Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 707 F.2d 1413, 1422–23
n.12 (D.C.Cir.1983) (noting that despite some deference to an agency’s statutory
construction, courts review purely legal findings de novo to ensure that an agency
does not exceed its authority); see also Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193, 204 (3d
Cir. 2005) (holding that the “determination of eligibility for adjustment of status –
unlike the granting of adjustment itself – is a purely legal question and does not
implicate agency discretion) (emphasis added).
19. Because Defendants actions were arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in
accordance with the law when they found Plaintiff Arjan Gill inadmissible
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(6)(E) without reviewing the evidence of record and
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 6 of 19
without citing to legal authority, this Court has jurisdiction to review the evidence
to determine whether it is legally sufficient to sustain the inadmissibility finding.
20. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because the United States
government is a defendant and because substantial portions of the events giving
rise to the Plaintiffs’ claim occurred within this judicial district. Defendants DHS
and USCIS create and disseminate policy regarding the adjudication of
immigration applications in this district, and Defendant AAO adjudicated Plaintiff
Arjan Gill’s appeal in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B) (2013).
Background Information on Plaintiffs’ Family
21. Plaintiff Arjan Gill, a citizen of India, is and has always been a law-abiding
person. He has traveled to the United States many times and always complied
with the terms of his visas. From 1993 to 1996, he worked for the Indian embassy
with an A-2 visa. In 1998, and then again in 1999 and 2000, he traveled to the
U.S. as a tourist with his wife, Daljit Kaur Gill, a LPR of the United States, and
returned to India.
22. Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s wife, Daljit, lives in the United States, away from her
husband, to assist in the care of her grandson, Ranjit. Ranjit, Plaintiff Sarabjeet
Gill’s son (and Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s grandson), was born with a rare heart defect
known as transposition of the great arteries, which causes a shortage of oxygen in
the blood flowing from the heart to the body. Because Ranjit requires extensive
and continuous care, and because his parents, Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill and his wife,
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 7 of 19
both work evening and over-night, Daljit is Ranjit’s primary care taker, forcing
her to be away from her husband, Plaintiff Arjan Gill.
23. Daljit herself suffers from multiple psychological and physical ailments. First,
Daljit suffers from “severe symptoms of depression and anxiety” and was
diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood.
Daljit’s psychological problems emanate in part due to multiple significant
traumatic losses that she has endured in combination with her lengthy separation
from her husband, partner, and support system for more than 42 years.
24. Because of Ranjit’s sickness, Plaintiff Arjan Gill and his son, Plaintiff Sarabjeet
Gill’s only hope for reuniting their family is to bring them together in the United
25. Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill filed an I-130 Petition on Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s behalf on
December 30, 2009. USCIS approved the petition on June 9, 2011.
26. Plaintiff Arjan Gill was interviewed for an Immigrant Visa at the U.S. Consulate
in New Delhi, India on December 15, 2011. The consulate subsequently denied
the visa on March 12, 2012, finding Plaintiff Arjan Gill inadmissible under 8
U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E) for alien smuggling and under 8 U.S.C. § 1182
(a)(6)(C)(i) for willful misrepresentation of a material fact for an incident related
to a trip Plaintiff Arjan Gill made to the United States in 2003.
27. In July 2012, Plaintiff Arjan Gill filed an I-601, Application for Waiver of
Grounds of Inadmissibility in which he argued that because neither of the
inadmissibility grounds applied to him, a waiver was not necessary. Despite this,
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 8 of 19
and to show good faith, Plaintiff Arjan Gill nevertheless filed the I-601
Application to address the alleged misrepresentation grounds of inadmissibility
along with substantial evidence of the extreme hardship to his LPR wife if his
Immigrant Visa were denied.
28. In August 2012, USCIS responded with a Request for Evidence (RFE) requesting
additional documentation to support Applicant’s case that his LPR wife, Daljit,
would suffer extreme hardship if Applicant were denied an Immigrant Visa. In
this RFE, USCIS did not request any additional evidence or legal argument
regarding Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s position that he is not inadmissible pursuant to the
smuggling ground of inadmissibility.
29. Plaintiff Arjan Gill responded to USCIS’ RFE with additional voluminous
evidence of extreme hardship to his LPR wife. Then, in a decision dated April 1,
2013, USCIS denied Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s I-601 Application stating that he was
inadmissible due to smuggling.
30. On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff Arjan Gill filed an appeal of Defendant USCIS’ denial
with Defendant the Administrative Appeals Office or “AAO”. On November 6,
2013, Defendant AAO dismissed the appeal stating that Plaintiff Arjan Gill is
inadmissible on the ground of alien smuggling, a ground for which no waiver is
available. In its decision, Defendant AAO failed to address the voluminous
evidence that Plaintiff Arjan Gill submitted which establishes that he did not
participate in alien smuggling. The AAO also failed to address relevant Circuit
Court precedent cited in Plaintiff’s legal memorandum, which establishes that as a
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 9 of 19
matter of law, Plaintiff Arjan Gill is not an alien smuggler. Instead, the AAO
cited only to previous determinations made by Defendant USCIS.
Events Giving Rise to the Alleged Grounds of Inadmissibility
31. As explained in the numerous affidavits submitted on Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s behalf,
which were ignored by the AAO in their decision-making process, the facts
leading to the charges of inadmissibility fail to establish that Plaintiff Arjan Gill
was a knowing participant in an alien smuggling scheme. Rather, the evidence
establishes that he was the unfortunate victim of the fraudulent acts of his own
eldest son, Paramjeet Singh Gill, a deportee from the U.S., living in India.
32. Plaintiff Arjan Gill entered the U.S. in June of 2003 to visit his younger son,
Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill. His elder son, Paramjeet Singh Gill, who lived in India at
the time, was helping make Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s travel arrangements and
suggested that his father travel through California. Paramjeet Singh Gill said he
had a friend from his village, a Mr. Sewak Singh (“Sewa”), who would be
traveling to California around the same time, and did not speak English.
Paramjeet Singh Gill suggested that Plaintiff Arjan Gill travel with him.
33. On June 11, 2003,2
Sewa and Plaintiff Arjan Gill travelled together from Delhi to
Frankfurt and then to Los Angeles. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff Arjan Gill, in 2002
his son, Paramjeet Singh Gill, had a fraudulent Indian passport made in his name
with Sewa Singh’s photograph. Then, sometime during one of the flights on June
11, 2003, Sewa Singh hid the fraudulent passport in Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s luggage.
Any discrepancy between dates in Plaintiffs’ original filing and Defendants’ records is
unintentional, and otherwise has no material impact on the outcome of this case.
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 10 of 19
34. When Plaintiff Arjan Gill presented himself to U.S. Immigration, he was referred
to secondary inspection.
35. Plaintiff Arjan Gill was taken to a room and questioned by several Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) officers regarding his role in smuggling in Sewa Singh.
Plaintiff Arjan Gill truthfully stated that although it was true that Sewa had
travelled with him, he had not “brought” him to the United States.
36. Plaintiff Arjan Gill truthfully told the officer that he did not have Sewa’s passport,
though unbeknownst to him, he did. Officers checked his luggage and found
Sewa’s passport inside. Though the passport was placed in Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s
luggage without his knowledge, it looked to the officers as though Plaintiff Arjan
Gill was lying.
Plaintiff Arjan Gill was Cheated by His Own Son and His Son’s Friend
37. The officer told Plaintiff Arjan Gill that the presence of the fraudulent passport
amongst his belongings proved that he was bringing Sewa to the US. Plaintiff
Arjan Gill, for his part, was utterly confused, as at that time he had no idea that
his son and Sewa had devised an illegal scheme in which he was an unwitting
38. As was established in a sworn affidavit, which was submitted to both the USCIS
and the AAO, Paramjeet Singh Gill admitted that his father was not the one
responsible for smuggling Sewa to United States. Intead, Paramjeet Singh Gill
himself perpetrated and effectuated the smuggling of his friend Sewa into the U.S.
39. When accused of smuggling by CBP, Plaintiff Arjan Gill made many efforts to
truthfully deny what the officers accused him of, but he was exhausted; not only
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 11 of 19
had he travelled more than 30 hours, but Plaintiff Arjan Gill is a diabetic and
needs food and medicine to prevent his blood sugar from dropping. He had not
eaten and felt very tired and anxious. Unable to endure further questioning,
Plaintiff Arjan Gill relented to the officer’s insistence and may have falsely
admitted to “bringing Sewa” to the United States. This admission was not the
result of culpability but of exhaustion and confusion.
40. Immigration Authorities also interviewed Sewa Singh, who was later deported
from the United States in December 2003. During his interview, Sewa admitted to
conspiring with Paramjeet Singh Gill alone, not with Plaintiff Arjan Gill, to
fraudulently gain entry to the United States. Sewa also admitted to placing the
altered passport in Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s hand bag without his knowledge. He also
repeatedly informed the immigration authorities that Plaintiff Arjan Gill was
innocent and asked them not to punish Plaintiff Arjan Gill for his wrongdoing and
the wrongdoing of Plaintiff’s son.
41. Plaintiff Arjan Gill spent the night of June 3, 2003 in immigration detention. The
next day, he was interviewed by CBP officers again. Feeling more rested,
Plaintiff Arjan Gill told CBP officers everything he knew. Plaintiff Arjan Gill
explained that he had been a diplomat in the US and that he had served honorably
in the Indian Air Force. He told them that he had nothing to do with Sewa Singh’s
entry to the U.S. and encouraged them to take action against the culprits,
including his son, Paramjeet Singh Gill.
42. The officer appeared fully satisfied and convinced of Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s
innocence. He released Plaintiff Arjan Gill and allowed him to go to Virginia to
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 12 of 19
visit his other son, Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill, as planned. Plaintiff Arjan Gill recalls
signing some papers before he left, but he does not remember what they said. He
understands now that in these papers he may have accepted that he was smuggling
someone into the U.S. However, Plaintiff Arjan Gill did indeed admit guilt, it
was neither a knowing nor willful admission.
43. Afterwards, Plaintiff Arjan Gill travelled to Virginia and spent about one month
with his younger son, Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill, before returning to India in July of
2003. He had no other contact with Immigration Authorities during his stay in the
United States or upon his return to India. He learned later on, however, that Sewa
Singh was ordered deported from the U.S. and that his other son, Paramjeet Singh
Gill, lost his Lawful Permanent Resident status.
Plaintiff Arjan Gill is Denied his Family-Based Immigrant Visa, and Deprived of an
Opportunity to Challenge or Refute the Inadmissibility Charges Against Him
44. On June 9, 2011, USCIS approved the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by
Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill for his father, Plaintiff Arjan Gill, which made him
immediately eligible for lawful permanent residency in the United States. At
Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s immigrant visa interview on December 15, 2011 (a
prerequisite to granting an immigrant visa to the beneficiary of an approved I-
130), the Consular Official questioned Plaintiff Arjan Gill regarding the events of
June 2003.The Officer did not permit Plaintiff Arjan Gill to fully explain the
situation, cutting of Plaintiff before he could provide a complete explanation of
what had transpired or explaining why he might have signed some documents
declaring his culpability in alien smuggling.
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 13 of 19
45. It was not until Plaintiff Arjan Gill received the Consulate’s written decision that
he learned that he had been charged with alien smuggling and misrepresentation.
46. As conclusively established by Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s sworn affidavit as well as in
letters by Paramjeet Singh Gill and Sewa Singh, Plaintiff Arjan Gill played no
part in a smuggling scheme. He spoke truthfully to authorities about his lack of
knowledge as to what had transpired in California, and once he realized that his
own son had actually planned the smuggling scheme, he timely retracted any
unintended misrepresentations he might have made.
47. Now Plaintiffs are indefinitely separated from one another; even more tragic,
Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s wife of more than forty years remains in the U.S. without
her husband, caring for the couple’s ill grandson Ranjit. Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill is
unable to bring his father to the United States, even though his I-130 Petition for
an Alien Relative was approved by USCIS. Plaintiff Arjan Gill remains isolated
in India and permanently separated from his family in the United States.
48. Plaintiffs Arjan Gill and Sarabjeet Gill have standing as they both continue to
suffer from Defendants’ legal wrong. See Association of Data Processing Service
Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 152–53 (1970) (finding that persons who
suffer “injury in fact” by an administrative agency’s action are “arguably within
the zone of interests to be protected or regulated[,]” and have standing to sue
under the APA); see also Bangura v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487, 500 (6th Cir. 2006)
(“Because the interest both Plaintiffs seek to protect—the preservation of their
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 14 of 19
family unit—is the primary interest the INA's immediate relative visa provisions
were designed to protect, both Plaintiffs' interests fall within the . . . zone of
49. Plaintiff Arjan Gill is denied the benefit of residing in the United States with his
LPR wife and the rest of his U.S. citizen family.
50. Due to Defendants’ faulty adjudications process, whereby they ignored the
substantive evidence of record and only considered the evidence contained in
Defendants own records, Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill, a U.S. citizen, is unjustly denied
the benefit of the approved I-130 Petition for an Alien Relative that he filed for
his elderly father. He is also prevented from reuniting his family in the United
States. Defendants’ actions cause both Plaintiffs severe emotional and financial
51. Plaintiff Arjan Gill has a right to an adequate decision-making process regarding
his waiver application: one that takes into account all of the evidence and that is
not arbitrary and capricious.
52. The Due Process clause of the United States Constitution provides that “certain
substantive rights – life, liberty, and property – cannot be deprived except
pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures.” Cleveland Bd. Of Educ. v.
Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985). The freedom to make personal choices in
“matters of marriage and family life” is an established liberty interest protected by
the Due Process Clause. See Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059 (9th
2008); Udugampola v. Jacobs, 795 F. Supp. 2d 96, 103 (D.D.C. 2011).
Defendants’ actions unlawfully infringe upon both Plaintiffs’ liberty interests to
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 15 of 19
make personal choices with regard to family matters, free from unjustifiable
53. The injury suffered by Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill is caused by the fact that due to
Defendants’ arbitrary and capricious adjudications process, he is unjustly denied
the benefit of the Alien Relative Petition that he filed for his father.
54. There is no waiver for a finding of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)
in this particular situation. Thus, so long as the 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)
inadmissibility ground is unjustly applied to Plaintiff Arjan Gill, he will not be
admitted to the U.S. as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) and he and his son
will continue to suffer from this legal injury in perpetuity.
55. The injury suffered by both Plaintiffs is likely to be redressed in a favorable
decision by this Court.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
56. Plaintiffs have exhausted all of their administrative remedies. There no further
administrative remedies that Plaintiffs can seek.
CAUSES OF ACTION
57. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
58. The decision by USCIS, which was sustained by the AAO, to deny Plaintiff Arjan
Gill’s I-601 Application under 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(6)(C), 8 U.S.C. §1182(i), and 8
U.S.C. §1182(a)(6)(E) violates the Administrative Procedures Act, the Due
Process Clause of the United States Constitution, and constitutes a manifest
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 16 of 19
59. On any fair reading of the record of evidence and legal arguments made, Plaintiff
Arjan Gill demonstrated that he did not willfully or knowingly make any material
misrepresentation to gain an immigration benefit, nor did he engage in alien
smuggling pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E). Had Defendants properly
considered the voluminous evidence before them, Plaintiffs would have obtained
a favorable result in this case.
Count One: Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b), 701 et seq.
60. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
61. The APA states “[t]he reviewing court shall compel agency action . . . found to be
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
the law.” 5 U.S.C. 706 (2013). Defendants’ improper denial of Plaintiff Arjan
Gill’s s I-601 Application on grounds that he is statutorily ineligible for a waiver
is arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law. Plaintiffs and their
US citizen and LPR family will continue to suffer emotional harm and injuries
due to their prolonged separation until Defendants perform their mandated duty to
properly adjudicate his I-601 Application. Defendants’ actions are a violation of
the APA and cognizable under 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(13) and 706.
Count Two: Due Process Violation.
62. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
63. Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill has a protected liberty interest in Defendants’ decision on
Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s immigrant visa application.
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 17 of 19
64. The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution proved that “certain
substantive rights – life, liberty, and property – cannot be deprived except
pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures.” Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v.
Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985).
65. The freedom to make personal choices in “matters of marriage and family life” is
an established liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Bustamante,
53 F.3d at 1062 (citing Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFluer, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40
(1974)). Moreover, Congress “implement[ed] the underlying intention of our
immigration laws regarding the preservation of the family unit.” H.R.Rep. No.
1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. (1952), reprinted in 1952 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1653, 1680.
66. Plaintiffs Sarabjeet Gill and Arjan Gill continue to suffer from Defendants’ legal
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
67. Declare that Plaintiff Arjan Gill is not inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(6)(E), under the Declaratory Relief, 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
68. Enjoin Defendants from barring Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s admission to the United
States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E).
69. Award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act
(EAJA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412;
70. Grant other such relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 18 of 19
Dated: ____________________ ____________________
Sandra A. Grossman
D.C. Bar No.: 489814
Christina A. Wilkes
D.C. Bar No.: 980652
Grossman Law, LLC
110 N. Washington Street, Suite 350
Rockville, MD 20850
T: (240) 403-0913
F: (240) 453-0915
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 19 of 19