NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 14

- 2777

_______________ JIN MEI LIN, Appel lant in Civil No. 2

- 11

- cv - 06373

v. SECRETARY UNITED STATE S DEPARTMENT

OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Director U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services; EVANGELIA A. KLAPAKIS, Filed Office Director U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services XIAO LIN, Appellant in Civil No. 2

- 11

- cv - 06374

v. SEC RETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Director U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servi c es; EVANGELIA A. KLAPAKIS, Field Office Director U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services

_______________ On Appeal from the United Sta tes District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ( Civ. Nos. 2

- 11

- cv - 06373, 2

- 11

- cv - 06374)

_______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L

. A

. R

. 34.1(a)

March 17, 2015 Before: RENDELL, FUENTES, BARRY , Circuit Judges2 (Filed: September 1, 2015 )

_______________ OPINION 

_______________ FUENTES, Circuit Judge : Jin Mei Lin and Xiao Lin brought this suit challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s denial of their naturalization applications. The District Court granted su mmary judgment to the defendants , and, on appeal, we will affirm. The plaintiffs are siblings , natives of China , and Chinese nationals

. Their father, Hai Rui Lin, is also a native of China and a Chinese national. In February 1999, Hai Rui Lin married U.S . citizen Tina Chu , a person with whom he had little previous contact , in China

. The following day, Chu returned to the United States, but she filed I

- 130 Petitions to admit into the United States Hai Rui Lin as her husband and the plaintiffs as her stepch ildren. In May 2001, the plaintiffs applied to the U.S. Consulate in China for immigrant visas and alien registrations. Their applications were approved by consular process , they obtained Legal Permanent Resident status, and they entered the United States shortly thereafter. Though the plaintiffs stated on their application s that they intended to live with Chu in California, two weeks after arrival they relocated to Philadelphia to live with their father’s brother

. Hai Rui Lin and Chu formally divorced in N ovember 2002

.

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does no t constitute binding precedent.3

In 200 6 , the plaintiffs filed the N

- 400 Applications for Naturalization that are at issue in this appeal. The government denied the application s on the basis that, though the plaintiffs were admitted to the country as lawful permanent resid ents, the admission was based on a sham marriage

. The plaintiffs then filed an N

- 336 Request for Hearing. The g overnment again denied the ir application s, specifically noting that the only evidence produce d by the plaintiffs to show that the marriage betwee n their father and Chu was bona fide was assorted phone bill s and envelopes that Chu sent to Hai Rui Lin without
contents , along with limited travel records for Chu

. The plaintiffs then filed the instant suits in the Eastern District of Pennsylv ania seekin g de novo review of the denial of the ir naturalization applications. Agreeing with the government that the marriage supporting the applications was indeed a sham, the District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants

. 1 On appeal, the plaintiffs po int to nothing tending to show that the marriage between Chu and Hai Rui Lin was legit imate. Eligibility for naturalization depends on the applicant’s lawful admission for permanent residence, and w e have held th at a person has not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence if that status is obtained by fraud. 2 We thus agree with the District Court’s conclusion that, “[v]iewing the undisputed facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs , it is clear that Hai Rui Lin and Tina Chu did not

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 142 1. We have jurisdiction over the final order of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2 Gallimore v. Attorney General of U.S., 619 F.3d 216, 224

- 25 (3d Cir. 20 10) ; 8 U.S.C.4

intend to esta blish a life together, and therefore Jin Mei Lin and Xiao Lin cannot demonstrate their eligibility for naturalization.” 3 Meanwhile, though the plaintiffs ’ brief invokes the Administrative Procedure Act, that Act is inapposite where, as here, there are inde pendent statutory provisions providing for judicial review of an agency’s decisions. 4 For substantially the same reasons given by the District Court, we will affirm.

§§ 1427, 1429.
3 See Jin Mei Lin v. Napolitano, No s . CIV. A. 11

- 6373,

- 6374, 2013 WL 2370588, at *4 (E.D. Pa. May 31, 2013)

. 4 5 U.S.C. § 704; Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 903 (1988).