Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00862/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00862-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 Plaintiffs’ request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully briefed and

oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Partridge v.

Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Yeeli Aran, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Janet Napolitano, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-0862 PHX DGC

ORDER

This order concerns Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment.

Docs. 16, 19. The motions have been fully briefed. Docs. 16-19, 23-29. For the reasons

stated below, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion and grant Defendants’ motion.1

I. Background.

On April 19, 2010, Plaintiffs Yeeli Aran and Itay Shimon Elnatan filed a declaratory

action to set aside revocation of the Petition for Alien Relative (“I-130”) that Aran filed for

Elnatan. Doc. 1. The final decision, made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”),

adopted the findings made by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

(“CIS”). Id. The facts that follow are based on the parties’ statements of facts submitted

with their motions for summary judgment (Docs. 17, 18), the parties’ responses to opposing

statements of facts (Docs. 24, 25, 28), and the record below (Docs. 14-1, 14-2, 14-4, 18-1).

Plaintiff Aran is a United States citizen, and Plaintiff Elnatan is a citizen of Israel.

Doc. 17 ¶¶ 1, 2. Elnatan was granted a visitor B-2 visa and entered the United States in

Case 2:10-cv-00862-DGC Document 30 Filed 11/24/10 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

2003. Doc. 18 ¶ 1. On May 12, 2005, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)

issued Elnatan a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) regarding alleged violations of his visa

conditions, violations that served as the basis for removal proceedings that formally

commenced at some time after issuance of the NTA. Doc. 18 ¶ 3; Doc. 28 at 1; Doc. 18-1

at 4 n.1. Plaintiffs married on May 15, 2005 in Niagara Falls, New York. Doc. 17 ¶ 4.

Plaintiffs do not deny that Elnatan was served with the NTA shortly before the marriage. See

Doc. 27 at 3. Plaintiffs assert, however, that they had planned to marry prior to the issuance

of the NTA (Doc. 28 ¶ 15) and that they sought advice from counsel in April 2005 “regarding

their prospective I-130 and I-485 petitions based on their upcoming marriage” (Doc. 27 at

3). The record contains a letter from a New York City attorney dated May 5, 2009, stating

that Plaintiffs contacted him in April 2005 to “advise and represent them regarding their

prospective Petition for Alien Relative, Application for Adjustment of Status and related

petitions.” Doc. 14-1 at 72. The record also contains a letter from the same attorney and law

firm dated April 28, 2005, addressed to Elnatan as the firm’s client “in connection with the

preparation and submission of a Petition for Alien Relative, Application for Adjustment of

Status and related petitions.” Doc. 14-1 at 73-74.

On June 6, 2005, Aran filed an I-130 Petition for Elnatan, which was approved on

November 9, 2005. Doc. 18 ¶¶ 4, 5. On January 10, 2006, Elnatan filed an Application for

Adjustment of Status to Legal Permanent Resident (“I-485”). Id. ¶ 6. In connection with that

application, Plaintiffs were interviewed twice by the government – on or about October 31,

2006 in Buffalo, New York, and on or about September 5, 2008 in Phoenix, Arizona. Id. ¶¶

7-8. During these interviews, one or both Plaintiffs made certain statements regarding their

relationship after marriage that were either false or inconsistent, including their reasons for

living geographically apart for most of their married life; Aran’s possible relationship with

another man, Shay Rotem, whom Aran incorrectly characterized as a female co-worker (Doc.

14-4 at 62); Aran’s travel plans to Israel immediately after the second interview, more

specifically the duration of the trip and whether she was going alone or with Shay Rotem;

the frequency of visits between Plaintiffs; and Aran’s places of abode. Doc. 18 ¶¶ 10-31.

Case 2:10-cv-00862-DGC Document 30 Filed 11/24/10 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

On December 30, 2008, the CIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke the I-130

(“NOIR”) because CIS concluded that Plaintiffs’ marriage was not bona fide and was

contracted “solely for the purpose of conferring immigration benefits upon the beneficiary.”

Id. ¶¶ 32, 33. Plaintiffs responded by providing additional exhibits documenting the bona

fides of their marriage, including joint account statements, joint tax returns, leases, wedding

pictures, wedding cards, and letters from Aran’s father and Aran regarding the strength of

the marriage, along with partial explanations for prior testimonial inconsistencies. Id. ¶¶ 34-

47; Doc. 14-1 at 7. Among the explanations was a letter from Aran to her attorney stating

that Shay Rotem was “a very good friend of [Aran’s] from Israel” with whom she grew up

and whom she knew since they attended school together. Doc. 14-2 at 70. The CIS revoked

the I-130 on April 7, 2009. Doc. 14-1 at 81.

Plaintiffs appealed to the BIA on the same day, and the BIA dismissed the appeal on

February 22, 2010. Doc. 18 ¶¶ 55, 56. In its decision, the BIA concluded that Plaintiffs had

failed to prove that the marriage was bona fide by a preponderance of the evidence and,

therefore, that there was “good and sufficient cause to revoke the visa petition.” Doc. 18-1

at 4-5. In its rationale, the BIA highlighted the Plaintiffs’ false and inconsistent statements,

and also noted that accounts of Plaintiffs’ visits to see each other and time spent together “are

basic facts that a couple in a married relationship should know about each other.” Id. at 5.

In their complaint and their motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs allege that the

CIS decision to revoke the I-130 – affirmed by the BIA – was arbitrary, capricious, and not

in accordance with the law because it was rooted in circumstances and events after the

inception of marriage. Doc. 1 at 6; Doc. 16 at 1. Defendants argue that they are entitled to

summary judgment because “substantial evidence . . . support[s] the agency’s decision to

revoke the I-130.” Doc. 19 at 2.

II. Legal Standards.

A. Summary Judgment.

A party seeking summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing the

district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which

Case 2:10-cv-00862-DGC Document 30 Filed 11/24/10 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows “that there is no genuine issue as

to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(c)(2).

B. Revocation of Visa Petition.

A decision by the CIS or BIA to revoke a visa petition will be reversed if it is

“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law . . . or

if its factual findings are unsupported by substantial evidence.” Love Korean Church v.

Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 753-54 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and Mester

Mfg. Co. v. INS, 879 F.2d 561, 565 (9th Cir. 1989)). Factual findings made by an agency

may not be overturned unless “the evidence presented would compel a reasonable finder of

fact to reach a contrary result.” Family Inc. v. United States Citizenship & Immigration

Servs., 469 F.3d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original).

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1155, CIS can revoke an I-130 petition for “good and sufficient

cause,” a standard that is satisfied when “the evidence of record at the time the decision was

issued . . . warranted . . . [a] denial of the petition,” Love Korean Church, 549 F.3d at 754 n.3

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (alteration in original), and the government

meets the “burden of producing substantial evidence supporting its determination,”

Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1984); accord

Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluding that “the BIA’s

rejection of [a removal challenger’s claim of good faith marriage] is supported by substantial

evidence”). The court reviews the revocation as a denial of the I-130 in the first instance.

Love Korean Church, 549 F.3d at 754 n.3.

Judicial review is “limited to the reasoning articulated by the agency,” and the court

cannot reject evidence that the agency itself did not reject. Id. at 754-55. Moreover, a visa

petitioner has the burden to prove entitlement to the visa using the appropriate evidentiary

standard, and “any inconsistency must be resolved against the petitioner.” See id. In some

Case 2:10-cv-00862-DGC Document 30 Filed 11/24/10 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

circumstances, “[d]oubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner’s proof may . . . lead to a

reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support

of the visa petition.” Id. at 754 (citation omitted) (alterations and emphasis in original).

C. Bona Fides of Marriage.

When deciding whether a visa petitioner entered into marriage in good faith, “the sole

inquiry . . . is whether [the bride and groom] intended to establish a life together at the time

of marriage.” Damon v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084, 1090 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Bark v. INS,

511 F.2d 1200, 1202 (9th Cir. 1975)). “The concept of establishing a life as marital partners

contains no federal dictate about the kind of life that the partners may choose to lead. Any

attempt to regulate their life styles . . . in the guise of specifying the requirements of a bona

fide marriage would raise serious constitutional questions.” Bark, 511 F.2d at 1201.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a couple’s conduct after marriage is relevant, but “only to the

extent that it bears upon their subjective state of mind at the time they were married.” Id. at

1202. For example, proof of separation cannot by itself support a conclusion that a marriage

was not bona fide because a court cannot be “reasonably assured that it is more probable than

not that couples who separate after marriage never intended to live together.” Id.

III. Discussion.

The CIS decision to revoke the I-130 petition was set forth in a seven-page, singlespaced statement. Doc. 14-1 at 82. The BIA affirmed the CIS decision “for reasons stated

in the [CIS] decision,” concluding that Plaintiffs had failed to prove the bona fides of their

marriage by a preponderance of the evidence. Doc. 18-1 at 5. 

The BIA conclusion was not arbitrary and capricious. Because the BIA reached its

decision for reasons stated by CIS, the Court will look to the CIS decision in evaluating the

reasonableness of the agency’s conclusion. 

CIS noted that the Plaintiffs were married after they received notice that Mr. Elnatan

was being placed in removal proceedings. Doc. 14-1 at 82. It then reviewed evidence that

Plaintiffs did not live together for a substantial period of time after their marriage:

Furthermore, you have spent what appears to be the entirety of your marriage

Case 2:10-cv-00862-DGC Document 30 Filed 11/24/10 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

living separately from Mr. Elnatan. You married Mr. Elnatan in May of 2005

while he was in removal proceedings and then subsequently departed the

United States without Mr. Elnatan in November of 2005. You re-entered the

U.S. on September 08, 2006, and resided apart from Mr. Elnatan in Iowa until

the middle of 2007, at which time you again departed the United States

without Mr. Elnatan. You re-entered the U.S. on September 01, 2007, and

resided apart from Mr. Elnatan in San Francisco, where you rented a

one-bedroom apartment with Shay Rotem. You assert that you continued to

live apart from Mr. Elnatan after your marriage because of employment related

to his company. However, as previously mentioned, this claim has been

discredited by your own employment application and resume. 

Id. at 85. 

CIS identified numerous misrepresentations and inconsistencies in the sworn

statements made by Plaintiffs during their 2008 interview. These include Ms. Aran’s

statements about residing in Arizona; inconsistent statements between Plaintiffs on the

frequency of her visits to Arizona and his visits to San Francisco; false claims regarding Ms.

Aran’s ongoing employment for Mr. Elnatan’s company; Ms. Aran’s false claim that she

lived with co-workers; false claims regarding Shay Rotem’s gender; inconsistent statements

on Ms. Aran’s Israel travel plans; Ms. Aran’s joint lease with Mr. Rotem in San Francisco;

Ms. Aran’s failure to disclose her travels to Mexico with Mr. Rotem; Ms. Aran’s failure to

disclose her employment with other companies in San Francisco; Ms. Aran’s claim in

employment applications that she was no longer employed with Mr. Elnatan’s company; and

other inconsistencies. Id. at 82-85.

CIS also concluded that Plaintiffs’ affirmative evidence of their ongoing relationship

was not credible. For example, the Arizona rental agreement submitted by Plaintiffs as

evidence of their cohabitation covered the time period when Ms. Aran was renting an

apartment with Shay Rotem in San Francisco. Id. at 85-86. The electric utility statement that

listed both Plaintiffs as account holders was for an address where Ms. Aran never resided and

was issued when she had been out of the country for several months. Id. at 86. Other

documents that purported to show Plaintiffs living together in Arizona were undercut by the

fact that Ms. Aran has never lived in Arizona. Id. Documents showing Plaintiffs living

together in New York covered a period when Ms. Aran was living in Iowa. Id. 

Case 2:10-cv-00862-DGC Document 30 Filed 11/24/10 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

This is not a case where the BIA and CIS concluded that the marriage was a sham

because of the manner in which Plaintiffs lived after their marriage, as the Ninth Circuit

condemned in Bark. Rather, CIS found that Plaintiffs had lied repeatedly in the sworn

testimony to the marriage, provided inconsistent information about their marriage, and

provided documentary evidence contrary to other facts established by the agency. Plaintiffs’

lack of credibility cast serious doubt on the reliability of their other evidence. Love Korean

Church, 549 F.3d at 754. The adverse credibility determinations of CIS were based on

specific, cogent reasons, as required in Oropeza-Wong, 406 F.3d at 1148. 

As noted above, the BIA and CIS can revoke an I-130 petition for “good and

sufficient cause,” a standard that is satisfied when the evidence of record at the time the

decision was issued warranted a denial of the petition. Love Korean Church, 549 F.3d at 754

n.3. The Court concludes that the evidence before the BIA and CIS warranted the decision

in this case. The government has satisfied its burden of producing substantial evidence to

support the decision. Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd., 736 F.2d at 1309; Oropeza-Wong,

406 F.3d at 1139. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 16) is denied.

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19) is granted.

3. The Clerk shall terminate this matter.

DATED this 24th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00862-DGC Document 30 Filed 11/24/10 Page 7 of 7