Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
1
Sandra A. Grossman
D.C. Bar No.: 489814
Christina A. Wilkes
D.C. Bar No.: 980652
Grossman Law, LLC
110 N. Washington Str...
2
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff Arjan Singh Gill (“Plaintiff Arjan Gill”) is a 69-year-old citizen of India.
U.S. Citizenship ...
3
Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied the waiver application
on the grounds that Plaintiff Arjan Gill wa...
4
liberty interest to make personal choices with regard to marriage and family
matters, free from unjustifiable government...
5
Petition on June 9, 2011. Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill resides in Woodbridge, Virginia
with his LPR wife and U.S. citizen ch...
6
16. In denying Plaintiff Arjan Gill’s appeal, Defendants ignored substantive evidence
of record, including a sworn confe...
7
without citing to legal authority, this Court has jurisdiction to review the evidence
to determine whether it is legally...
8
both work evening and over-night, Daljit is Ranjit’s primary care taker, forcing
her to be away from her husband, Plaint...
9
and to show good faith, Plaintiff Arjan Gill nevertheless filed the I-601
Application to address the alleged misrepresen...
10
matter of law, Plaintiff Arjan Gill is not an alien smuggler. Instead, the AAO
cited only to previous determinations ma...
11
34. When Plaintiff Arjan Gill presented himself to U.S. Immigration, he was referred
to secondary inspection.
35. Plain...
12
had he travelled more than 30 hours, but Plaintiff Arjan Gill is a diabetic and
needs food and medicine to prevent his ...
13
visit his other son, Plaintiff Sarabjeet Gill, as planned. Plaintiff Arjan Gill recalls
signing some papers before he l...
14
45. It was not until Plaintiff Arjan Gill received the Consulate’s written decision that
he learned that he had been ch...
15
family unit—is the primary interest the INA's immediate relative visa provisions
were designed to protect, both Plainti...
16
make personal choices with regard to family matters, free from unjustifiable
government interference.
53. The injury su...
17
59. On any fair reading of the record of evidence and legal arguments made, Plaintiff
Arjan Gill demonstrated that he d...
18
64. The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution proved that “certain
substantive rights – life, liberty, a...
19
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: ____________________ ____________________
Sandra A. Grossman
D.C. Bar No.: 489814
Christ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Arjan singh gill v. johnson (uscis aao), et al., (d.dc may 15, 2014) complaint ir 5 denied alien smuggler i-601 denied

536 views

Published on

ARJAN SINGH GILL v. Johnson (USCIS AAO), et al., (D.DC May 15, 2014) Complaint IR-5 Denied Alien Smuggler I-601 Denied

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Arjan singh gill v. johnson (uscis aao), et al., (d.dc may 15, 2014) complaint ir 5 denied alien smuggler i-601 denied

  1. 1. 1 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. ____________________ Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) 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 ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________) Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 19
  2. 2. 2 INTRODUCTION 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
  3. 3. 3 Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied the waiver application on the grounds that Plaintiff Arjan Gill was an alien smuggler pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(6)(E). 4. Plaintiff Arjan Gill appealed the decision to the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office 1 (“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 different result. 7. Plaintiffs also bring this action under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as Defendants’ actions unlawfully infringe on upon both Plaintiffs’ 1 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
  4. 4. 4 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). PARTIES 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
  5. 5. 5 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 Gill. 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). JURISDICTION 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. §706(b)(2). Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 5 of 19
  6. 6. 6 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
  7. 7. 7 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. VENUE 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). FACTUAL BACKGROUND 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
  8. 8. 8 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 States. Procedural History 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
  9. 9. 9 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
  10. 10. 10 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. 2 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
  11. 11. 11 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 pawn. 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
  12. 12. 12 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
  13. 13. 13 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
  14. 14. 14 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. STANDING 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
  15. 15. 15 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 interest.”). 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 hardship. 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 Cir. 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
  16. 16. 16 make personal choices with regard to family matters, free from unjustifiable government interference. 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 herein. 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 injustice. Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 16 of 19
  17. 17. 17 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 herein. 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 herein. 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
  18. 18. 18 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 wrong. 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
  19. 19. 19 Respectfully submitted, 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 E: Sandra@grossmanlawllc.com E: Christina@grossmanlawllc.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Case 1:14-cv-00813-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 19 of 19

×