Case ID: f-appx_481/html/0411-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christine Mary NOVICIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-16388.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Sept. 12, 2012.
    Filed Sept. 25, 2012.
    Ian Silverberg, Esquire, Hardy Law Group, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Gregory William Addington, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, Jesi J. Carlson, Trial, U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: RAWLINSON, BYBEE, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Eric H. Holder, Jr. is substituted for his predecessor Michael B. Mukasey as Attorney General. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Christine Novicio appeals the district court’s dismissal of her challenge to the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c), which prohibits an alien spouse from becoming a lawful United States resident if the alien spouse had been involved in marriage fraud. We affirm.

Novicio had standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 1154(c) because the provision prevents Novicio from residing with her husband in the United States, an “injury in fact” that would be redressed by a decision invalidating § 1154(c) as unconstitutional. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)).

Even if § 1154(c) burdens Novicio’s constitutional right to marry, because it imposes no particular procedure for determining whether an alien spouse is eligible for legal resident status, it is not a procedural statute that must be analyzed under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). As a substantive provision, § 1154(c) is subject to limited judicial review under the deferential standard articulated in Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 97 S.Ct. 1473, 52 L.Ed.2d 50 (1977). The enactment of § 1154(c) is justified by the “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” of deterring marriage fraud by aliens. Id. at 794-95, 97 S.Ct. 1473. Therefore, we hold that § 1154(c) is not unconstitutional even if it burdens Novicio’s constitutional right to marry by preventing her from living with her alien spouse in the United States.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.