Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02334/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02334-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 15-2334

ANKUSH SEHGAL and MOHIT SEHGAL,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH,

Attorney General of the United States, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 13 C 8576 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 2015 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 22, 2016

____________________

Before BAUER, POSNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. This appeal arises from an unusual immigration case that was filed properly in the district 

court. Plaintiffs Mohit and Ankush Seghal filed an “I-130” petition seeking lawful permanent resident status for Mohit, 

who is a citizen of India, as the husband of Ankush, who is a 

citizen of the United States. Immigration authorities denied 

their petition on the ground that Mohit had tried years earlier 

Case: 15-2334 Document: 30 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 12
2 No. 15-2334

to gain lawful residence in the United States by a fraudulent 

marriage to another woman. That made him ineligible for relief even though his marriage to Ankush is legitimate. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1154(c).

The decision to grant or deny an I-130 petition is not a matter of agency discretion, and Mohit is not subject to a removal 

order. The proper means to challenge the denial is therefore a 

suit in the district court under the Administrative Procedure 

Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 & 703. See Ogbolumani v. Napolitano, 557 

F.3d 729, 733 (7th Cir. 2009); Ruiz v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 269, 274-

76 (7th Cir. 2009). The Seghals sued under the APA.

The district court found that substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding of marriage fraud and thus 

granted summary judgment against the Seghals. We affirm. 

Although the agency’s handling of this case has involved procedural errors that are difficult to understand, the bottom-line 

decision was legally sound. Substantial evidence, including 

Mohit’s own written admission, supports the agency’s finding 

that Mohit’s earlier marriage was fraudulent, so the denial of 

Ankush’s I-130 petition on his behalf was correct. 

We begin with the story of Mohit’s earlier marriage to 

Renee Miller. Mohit Sehgal entered the United States lawfully on a visitor’s visa in September 2000 but overstayed his 

visa. Three years later, in June 2003, he married Renee Miller, 

a United States citizen. She then submitted on Mohit’s behalf 

a Form I-130, called a Petition for Alien Relative, to have him 

recognized as an immediate relative for immigration purposes. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 1154(a)(1)(A)(i); 8 

C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1). At the same time, Mohit filed a Form I-485 

application to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident 

Case: 15-2334 Document: 30 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 12
No. 15-2334 3

based on his claimed family relationship to U.S. citizen Miller. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).

Immigration authorities investigated the marriage between Mohit and Miller and concluded that it was not a good 

faith marriage. During a 2005 interview concerning Miller’s 

I-130 petition, Mohit and Miller asserted that they lived together at the home of Mohit’s mother. An immigration agent 

had telephoned Mohit’s mother in March 2005 and was told 

that she had “no idea” where to find Miller and had no means 

of contacting her. Based on that conversation and the lack of 

evidence of a “joint marital union,” Miller’s petition was denied in November 2005 by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).

Miller responded by submitting additional evidence to 

bolster the claim of a legitimate marriage. She included bank 

statements from a joint account, rent receipts purportedly 

from Mohit’s mother, and two sworn statements in the 

mother’s name saying that Miller and Mohit had lived with 

her since June 2003. Almost a year after receiving those documents, in December 2006, USCIS reopened the proceedings 

on Miller’s I-130 petition. 

By then, however, the marriage between Miller and Mohit 

had ended. Miller gave birth in 2007, and USCIS received a

letter apparently signed by Mohit admitting that he was not 

the child’s father. Miller later obtained a court order of protection against Mohit. In July 2008, an Illinois court entered a default judgment dissolving the marriage. The judgment noted 

that the parties had separated around October 2003, just four 

months after they married. Afterward, in December 2008, Miller and Mohit both failed to appear for a scheduled interview 

with USCIS. In March 2011 the agency denied the reopened 

Case: 15-2334 Document: 30 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 12
4 No. 15-2334

I-130 petition on the ground that there no longer was a marital 

relationship. 

In the meantime, in September 2009, agents working for 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) had arrested 

Mohit while investigating the woman who had prepared Miller’s I-130 petition for brokering fraudulent marriages. Her 

name was Teresita Zarrabian, and she eventually pled guilty 

to conspiring to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 371. She was sentenced to three years in prison. United 

States v. Zarrabian, No. 13-cr-00106-1 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2015). 

Mohit gave the ICE agents a sworn confession admitting 

that he had paid Zarrabian and Miller for help in obtaining 

permanent residency by marrying Miller. Zarrabian had introduced him to Miller, he said, and arranged the marriage in 

exchange for $18,000 to be shared by the two women. Mohit’s 

confession concluded by saying that his union with Miller 

“was not a real marriage” and was done so that he could obtain “permanent status” in the United States. Mohit initialed 

the three pages of text and swore that he had read each page 

of the confession and had given it “freely and voluntarily.” 

In March 2011, Miller gave ICE agents a written statement 

corroborating Mohit’s earlier confession that their marriage 

had been a sham. That handwritten statement, which was not 

shared with Mohit until the district court proceedings, explained that Miller was promised $5,000 to marry him. The 

couple had intended to divorce, the statement continued, after Mohit received a “green card.” Although the agent who 

faxed Miller’s statement wrote on the transmittal page that it 

was sworn, no language in the statement itself shows that Miller had signed it under penalty of perjury. 

Case: 15-2334 Document: 30 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 12
No. 15-2334 5

Mohit’s confession of the earlier marriage fraud and the 

corroborating 2011 statement by Miller suffice to support the 

finding of fraud. See Ogbolumani v. Napolitano, 557 F.3d 729, 

733–34 (7th Cir. 2009) (concluding that USCIS did not err in 

basing denial of petition on admission of marriage fraud); 

Aioub v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 609, 612 (7th Cir. 2008) (admissions 

that marriage was entered into in exchange for money and access to apartment and vehicle provided “substantial evidence” that marriage was fraudulent); Ghaly v. INS, 48 F.3d 

1426, 1431 (7th Cir. 1995) (upholding denial of petition based

on sworn statement admitting marriage fraud); Matter of Isber, 

20 I. & N. Dec. 676, 679 (BIA 1993) (explaining that spouse’s 

admission that she married alien as favor to help him obtain 

permanent residency shows that they “did not intend to establish a life together as husband and wife when they married”). Moreover, Mohit’s story contains numerous inconsistencies, including the dates he allegedly lived with and separated from Miller. See Reynoso v. Holder, 711 F.3d 199, 207 (1st 

Cir. 2013) (explaining that record did not compel conclusion 

of bona fide marriage when oral and written statements were 

inconsistent).

On appeal, the Seghals attempt to undermine this evidence of marriage fraud by attacking both Miller’s handwritten statement and Mohit’s September 2009 sworn confession 

to ICE agents. 

Miller’s Statement: First, the Sehgals contend, Miller’s statement should be disregarded as unreliable hearsay. Hearsay is 

admissible in immigration proceedings as long as it is probative and its use is not fundamentally unfair. See Ogbolumani, 

557 F.3d at 734; Olowo v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 692, 699 (7th Cir. 

2004).

Case: 15-2334 Document: 30 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 12
6 No. 15-2334

Miller’s handwritten statement details the scheme between Miller, Mohit Sehgal, and Zarragian to commit marriage fraud. It is highly probative as to whether Mohit entered 

into a marriage to gain an immigration benefit. And the 

Sehgals give no reason to question the statement’s reliability 

other than the fact that it is unsworn. Their speculation about 

Miller’s motive for writing the statement and the “chain of 

custody” is insufficient to undermine the evidence. See Ogbolumani, 557 F.3d at 734; Doumbia v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 957, 

962–63 (7th Cir. 2007).

But we also now know that USCIS and the Board did mischaracterize Miller’s statement as “sworn.” Twice in its brief 

to this court the government referred to Miller’s statement as 

“sworn,” despite the assertion in the Seghals’ brief that it was 

not. The government’s brief would not be cause for concern if 

it were accurate, but elsewhere in the same brief (and when

pressed at oral argument) the author of the brief conceded 

that Miller’s statement was not sworn. 

It is difficult to understand how the government could 

take both positions. It seems from the record that the government was content to continue mischaracterizing Miller’s statement as sworn until after a copy finally was shown to the 

Sehgals during the proceedings in the district court. The time 

to have set the record straight was immediately after USCIS 

mischaracterized Miller’s statement as sworn, not more than 

four years later after that same mistake was made in submissions to the BIA, the district court, and now this court. The 

label matters. As the Sehgals correctly argue, Miller’s statement may have been weighed more heavily than it should 

have been if it had been known to be unsworn. See Yu Yun 

Case: 15-2334 Document: 30 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 12
No. 15-2334 7

Zhang v. Holder, 702 F.3d 878, 881–82 (6th Cir. 2012) (recognizing that affidavits often are given more weight than unsworn 

statements); Zuh v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 504, 509 (4th Cir. 2008) 

(same).

Still, although we are disappointed by the government’s 

sloppiness, this error by USCIS and the Board was harmless. 

Miller’s handwritten statement is corroborated in large part 

by Mohit’s September 2009 confession. That confession was 

sworn and came from Mohit himself, and it was clearly an admission against interest. See 5 U.S.C. § 706 (instructing reviewing court to take “due account” of “rule of prejudicial error”); People of the State of Ill. v. I.C.C., 722 F.2d 1341, 1348 (7th 

Cir. 1983) (recognizing harmless error as exception to Chenery

doctrine). And given Mohit’s confession, Miller’s statement 

was not necessary to the finding of marriage fraud.

Mohit Seghal’s Confession: We now turn to the Seghals’ attack on Mohit’s own confession of marriage fraud. Recall that 

Mohit had made that confession in writing in 2009 after he 

was arrested by ICE agents. Mohit was released without 

charges and four months later married Ankush, who filed a 

new I-130 petition on Mohit’s behalf. The Seghals argue that 

Mohit’s confession was coerced, is not reliable, and thus does 

not provide substantial evidence of fraud.

The exclusionary rule does not ordinarily apply in immigration proceedings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 

1050 (1984); Martinez-Camargo v. INS, 282 F.3d 487, 492 (7th 

Cir. 2002). Suppression may be justified, however, if evidence 

was obtained under circumstances involving “egregious violations of Fourth Amendment or other liberties that might 

transgress notions of fundamental fairness and undermine 

the probative value of the evidence obtained.” Lopez-Martinez, 

Case: 15-2334 Document: 30 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 12
8 No. 15-2334

468 U.S. at 1050–51; see Gutierrez-Berdin v. Holder, 618 F.3d 647, 

652 (7th Cir. 2010); Martinez-Camargo, 282 F.3d at 492; Matter 

of Toro, 17 I. & N. Dec. 340, 343 (1980).

An alien claiming coercion by government officials “must 

come forward with proof establishing a prima facie case before the Service will be called on to assume the burden of justifying the manner in which it obtained the evidence.” In re 

Burgos, 15 I. & N. Dec. 278, 279 (BIA 1975); see Luevano v. 

Holder, 660 F.3d 1207, 1212 (10th Cir. 2011).

Mohit first asserted coercion on March 15, 2011, when he 

and Ankush were interviewed in connection with her I-130 

petition. Mohit asserted that he had not been given a copy of 

the 2009 written confession. He claimed that while he was in 

ICE custody, he had been “handcuffed despite being in a 

cast,” “almost tortured,” and “kept in a dark room and then 

in a stinking bathroom in the dark.” According to Mohit’s new 

account, which again was sworn, he had married Miller with 

the “honest perception” that he “would live a life with her.” 

Days later the director of a USCIS field office issued a notice of intent to deny Ankush’s I-130 petition on the ground 

that Mohit’s marriage to Miller had been fraudulent. Although Mohit and Miller had submitted “significant evidence of marital union,” the notice explained, that evidence 

was “impossible to reconcile” with the admissions of marriage fraud from both. The notice quoted in full Miller’s handwritten statement (which the agency characterized as sworn). 

The notice also acknowledged but rejected Mohit’s repudiation of his confession.

USCIS invited the Sehgals to submit additional evidence 

to prove that Mohit’s marriage to Miller had been bona fide. 

Case: 15-2334 Document: 30 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 12
No. 15-2334 9

Mohit submitted an affidavit swearing that the marriage had 

been “real” and elaborating on his confession to the ICE 

agents. His admission of fraud, he attested, was given under 

duress: 

I was in the custody of immigration officials 

who were threatening me with all kinds of 

things. They had me sign a statement without 

letting me read it first. They told me I had to 

sign it. In addition, I was in an accident shortly 

before I was taken into custody, and was on 

medication and had my hand in a cast. Despite 

the fact that I told the immigration officers both 

of these facts, they still kept me handcuffed, on 

my casted hand, and made me sign a statement 

without reading it.

The affidavit said nothing about torture or being held in a 

dark “stinking bathroom,” as Mohit had claimed during his 

March 2011 interview. Mohit submitted medical records 

showing that he had gone to a hospital emergency room complaining of pain from kidney stones five days before he was 

arrested and confessed. Also, Ankush submitted a letter offering her own assessment that Mohit would not commit fraud 

and had “genuine” intentions in marrying Miller.

Mohit’s allegations of coercion are too vague and inconsistent to undermine his confession of fraud. See Matter of Isber, 20 I. & N. Dec. at 679 (explaining that spouse’s “general 

claim of duress is insufficient to retract her detailed admissions as to the fraudulent nature of her marriage”). His two 

statements claiming coercion, made only weeks apart, were 

not even consistent with each other. In the first Mohit said he 

was “almost tortured,” but in the second he asserted only that 

Case: 15-2334 Document: 30 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 12
10 No. 15-2334

he was handcuffed despite his arm being in a cast. Mohit did 

not say how agents threatened him or say what the agents 

said during his interview. The agents could have “threatened” 

to do something entirely lawful. See Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 

427, 445 (2d Cir. 2008) (explaining that “threat of criminal 

sanctions for willfully failing to provide required regulatory 

information does not make providing the information coercive”). 

Mohit submitted medical records showing he was in pain 

around the time of the interview. He has never disclosed what 

medication he was taking, nor did he submit an affidavit from 

his doctor or other medical evidence suggesting that the medication would have undermined the voluntariness of his confession. And Mohit’s remaining assertions are not the kind of 

“egregious” actions calling for suppression of evidence. See 

Gutierrez-Berdin, 618 F.3d at 652–53 (explaining that “self-serving affidavit” alleging “very minor physical abuse coupled 

with aggressive questioning” did not warrant suppression); 

Oliva-Ramos v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 694 F.3d 259, 279 (3d Cir. 

2012) (listing factors relevant to egregiousness inquiry, including whether agents resorted to unreasonable shows of force 

or physical abuse).

Accordingly, the Seghals have not shown sufficient reason to discount either Mohit’s own confession of marriage 

fraud or Miller’s written corroboration. They have not shown 

that the agency decision was made without substantial supporting evidence.

The Sehgals also raise procedural objections to the agency’s decision. They argue that USCIS violated one of its own 

regulations by not providing them with a copy of Miller’s 

handwritten letter during the administrative proceedings. 

Case: 15-2334 Document: 30 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 12
No. 15-2334 11

The regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(ii), prohibits the agency from basing a determination of statutory eligibility on information that has not been disclosed to the applicant or petitioner. We have stressed before that “the better procedure” 

is for agencies to “produce the statement in question,” Ghaly, 

48 F.3d at 1435, and we are puzzled by USCIS’s continued failure to do so. See id. at 1437 (Posner, J., concurring) (describing 

refusal to provide statement as “inexplicable, offensive, and 

absurd, as well as contrary to the INS’s regulations”).

This point is especially relevant where, as in this case, the 

government has mischaracterized evidence with an error that

would have been caught much earlier if the Sehgals had been 

allowed to see the evidence. But we also have recognized that 

a summary can suffice, see id. at 1434–35, and here USCIS provided more than the summary that we found in Ghaly was adequate. The notice USCIS sent to the couple repeated Miller’s 

handwritten statement verbatim, though as noted it did not 

show that her statement was not sworn.

Finally, the Sehgals contend that the Board erroneously ignored “egregious conduct” by USCIS. The agency had told 

the Sehgals that it forwarded their appeal to the Board when 

in fact it had not done so (and did not do so for another year 

after making that representation). This error and delay were 

also unfortunate, yet the Sehgals do not identify any regulation that USCIS violated, nor do they say how they were 

harmed by the agency’s error. Delay alone, we have explained, “does not constitute ‘affirmative misconduct’ on the 

part of the government.” Mudric v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 469 

F.3d 94, 99 (3d Cir. 2006); see INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14, 19 

(1982) (explaining that government’s failure to process application promptly “falls far short” of affirmative misconduct); 

Case: 15-2334 Document: 30 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 12
12 No. 15-2334

see also Rajah, 544 F.3d at 445 (characterizing “[i]mpoliteness 

and slow service” as “unfortunate, but not uncommon, characteristics of many ordinary interactions with government 

agencies”).

To conclude, the agency had substantial evidence, in the 

form of Muhit Sehgal’s and Miller’s written confessions to 

marriage fraud, as well as the inconsistencies found in the 

original investigation of their marriage, to support the finding 

that Muhit had engaged in marriage fraud. He is therefore ineligible for relief under the I-130 petition that Ankush filed on 

his behalf. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-2334 Document: 30 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 12