Court Opinion

ID: 809179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-09-25 19:47:06+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:33.481921
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                SEP 25 2012

                                                                           MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTINE MARY NOVICIO,                          No. 10-16388

              Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00688-RCJ-VPC

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,** Attorney
General,

              Defendant - Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Nevada
                 Robert Clive Jones, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                     Argued and Submitted September 12, 2012
                               Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: RAWLINSON, BYBEE, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

       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

        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
      **
             Eric H. Holder, Jr. is substituted for his predecessor Michael B.
Mukasey as Attorney General. Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
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 (2000) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (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 (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 (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. 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.

                                           2