Redeemed Christian Church of God v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
Docket: Civil Action No. H-17-1670
Court: District Court, S.D. Texas; August 2, 2018; Federal District Court
Eligibility for a special immigrant religious worker visa requires several criteria: (1) Membership in a bona fide non-profit religious organization in the U.S. for at least two years prior to the petition; (2) Employment in a full-time religious role defined in the regulations, including positions as a minister or in professional/nonprofessional religious vocations; (3) Employment by a legitimate non-profit religious organization or its affiliate; (4) Continuous work in a religious position for at least two years, either abroad or while in lawful immigration status, after turning 14. The petitioning organization must certify that it is a bona fide entity, that the alien has been a religious worker for the requisite period, and that the alien will not engage in secular employment. The employer must provide evidence of its religious status, the employee's qualifications, and prior employment details.
The case concerns Uzoma, who entered the U.S. in October 2003 as a nonimmigrant but overstayed his authorization. The Redeemed Church of God filed an I-129 petition on his behalf in November 2003, which was approved. Subsequently, an I-360 petition for a Special Immigrant Religious Worker visa was filed in April 2006 but was denied by USCIS in February 2009. The Church appealed, leading to multiple remands and denials through the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) until the Church sought judicial review in 2013. During this period, Uzoma had a Customs and Border Patrol encounter in March 2008, where he was found with various credit cards and business-related documents indicating he held positions of responsibility in multiple businesses.
A Bank of America Platinum Business Check Card was issued to Joel Onyema Uzoma for his business, Cute Apparels, valid until October 2010. Uzoma also held a Dell Preferred Account since November 2006. A Washington Mutual Incoming Wire Transfer Notice documented a transfer of $6,941.94 from Caller Spring Nig(eria) Ltd. to Heph Technology Services on August 23, 2007, for purchasing notebook computers. Another notice showed a $13,301.76 transfer from Heph Technologies to Dell Marketing LP in September 2007, ordered by Uzoma.
A Washington Mutual Business Checking Account statement for October 2007 detailed various deposits and withdrawals, including an inbound wire transfer of $1,838. In December 2007, Caller Spring Nig(eria) Ltd. transferred $9,975 to Heph Technology for computers, and Uzoma ordered four computers from Dell for $3,217.20. Another December notice indicated a $6,792 transfer to Heph Technology. In February 2008, Uzoma ordered 40 computers for $31,285.56, which was subsequently transferred to Dell Marketing LP, with Uzoma listed as the authorized representative.
When questioned by Customs and Border Patrol about his business credit cards, Uzoma stated that his wife owned a clothing business and he and a partner, John Baptiste Sekumade, operated Heph for buying and shipping computers overseas. He registered Heph as a business in June 2007 but did not consider it work as he managed it in his spare time. He reported recent wire transfers totaling $16,757 from selling computers. Customs and Border Patrol concluded that Uzoma violated his visa by engaging in unauthorized employment, resulting in him being fingerprinted and served with a Form I-862 Notice to Appear for removal proceedings. However, due to incorrect address information, the form was rejected, and subsequent notices sent in August 2008 and December 2009 were undeliverable.
In March 2008, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Uzoma’s I-360 Petition, citing violations related to Heph Technology Services. The Church, which was supporting Uzoma's petition, responded in November 2008 with a letter clarifying the origins of Heph Technology Services, established in July 2007 at the request of a friend in Nigeria. In 2010, the Church responded to a subsequent Notice of Intent to Deny the I-360 Petition.
Emeka Okoronkwo provided a sworn affidavit stating his involvement in the IT business since 1996 and a request for assistance from Pastor Joel Onyema Uzoma to procure DELL notebooks in 2007. Okoronkwo sought a loan to purchase these notebooks, promising repayment after their sale. The USCIS denied Okoronkwo's I-360 visa application in October 2010, highlighting discrepancies between their statements and Texas Public Records, which indicated Uzoma had registered the business Heph in September 2004, although it was not operational until December 2005. The Church claimed this oversight led to an omission in previous responses. In May 2016, the court reviewed the Church's summary judgment motion, arguing that USCIS disregarded testimonial evidence. The court remanded the case to USCIS for clarification on whether this evidence was considered and whether it affected the conclusion about Uzoma's intent to profit from the computer sales. The AAO dismissed the appeal on October 18, 2016, determining that Uzoma had engaged in secular employment related to four computer shipments intended for resale between August 2007 and March 2008. The AAO noted Uzoma registered multiple businesses and provided documentation supporting profitable sales intentions, despite ultimately selling the computers at a loss. Uzoma's limited involvement claim was contradicted by evidence showing his significant role in multiple transactions, including being the billing and delivery contact for over 60 computers purchased from Dell.
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) concluded that the Church did not meet its burden of proof to establish that Uzoma's entry into the United States was solely for ministerial work as defined under section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act. Following the AAO's denial of the Church's appeal on May 3, 2017, the Church initiated a lawsuit.
The legal standards for summary judgment indicate that it is granted when the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute regarding any material fact, thereby entitling them to judgment as a matter of law. A genuine dispute exists if a reasonable jury could rule in favor of the nonmoving party. The burden initially lies with the moving party to inform the court of the basis for their motion and to identify evidence that supports the absence of any factual dispute. If the nonmoving party has the burden of proof at trial, the movant can meet their initial burden by showing a lack of evidence for the nonmoving party's claims.
Material facts are those that could influence the outcome of the case. If the moving party fails to meet this burden, the motion for summary judgment must be denied. The nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely on the allegations in their pleadings; they must produce specific evidence from the record that supports their claims. The court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party when deciding on a summary judgment motion.
In reviewing agency decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the district judge acts as an appellate tribunal, focusing on whether the evidence in the administrative record allowed the agency to arrive at its decision. The agency is responsible for resolving factual issues, while the court assesses the legality of the agency's decision based on the record.
Summary judgment is a legal process that determines if an agency's action is supported by the administrative record and consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) standards. Under the APA, agency actions can be overturned only if deemed "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law" (5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A)). The arbitrary and capricious standard is deferential, focusing on whether there is a rational connection between the facts and the agency's decision. An agency's decision can only be considered arbitrary and capricious if it is implausible and not a product of agency expertise. The court's review should rely on the existing administrative record rather than new evidence. A denial by USCIS for a visa application can be reversed only if found arbitrary or capricious. Visa applicants bear the burden of proof for eligibility, while the agency enjoys significant deference in interpreting the law.
In the case at hand, the Church seeks summary judgment, contending that the only relevant issue is whether Uzoma worked exclusively for the Church. The Church argues that the AAO abused its discretion by incorrectly concluding that Uzoma did not work solely for the Church, asserting that the AAO's interpretation of the relevant statutes was overly broad and thus arbitrary and capricious. The Church emphasizes that the law restricts special-immigrant religious workers from secular employment, not from secular activities, and claims there is no evidence of Uzoma's employment outside the Church.
The Church disputes specific parts of the AAO's decision, particularly regarding the testimony of John Baptiste Sekumade, Uzoma's friend. The Church argues that Sekumade's testimony was misinterpreted and that a statement from regional pastor Ade Okonrende, which claimed Sekumade stated the transactions were not for profit, was incorrectly assessed by the AAO. The AAO countered these claims, clarifying that Sekumade did not assert that Heph, the business he co-owns, was established without profit intentions. Additionally, the Church contends that Sekumade's original affidavit was misunderstood, noting that he indicated a shipment was a personal transaction and highlighted the presence of a purchase invoice from Dell.
The AAO identified inconsistencies between Okonrende's testimony and Sekumade's affidavit, particularly regarding whether the computer shipments were intended for profit. It concluded that Sekumade's statement did not negate the possibility of profit and chose not to accord significant weight to his testimony, a decision supported by the record and consistent with the deference owed to the AAO.
The Church contended that the AAO dismissed the Central Bank of Nigeria's guidelines on international money transfers, which purportedly limited individuals to wiring $2,000 per day. The AAO found the Church's argument unpersuasive, noting the guidelines were lengthy and lacked clarity on specific provisions that would impede transfers between Okoronkwo and Uzoma without business registration. The AAO observed that Heph had successfully received wire transfers exceeding $2,000, undermining the Church's claims.
Additionally, the Church argued that the AAO undervalued a Dell "chat" printout suggesting that individuals could not purchase more than five computers without going through Dell's Business Team. The AAO acknowledged the chat but deemed it insufficient to support the Church's position, as it did not explicitly state that business registration was a prerequisite for larger purchases.
Lastly, the Church claimed the AAO improperly dismissed Uzoma's tax returns from 2008 to 2011, particularly the 2015 return. The AAO addressed this by noting the 2015 return was significantly later than relevant events and that Uzoma ceased Heph activities after 2008. The AAO's evaluations of the guidelines, the chat printout, and the tax returns were upheld by the record, indicating no errors in its decision-making process.
The government contends that the Church must demonstrate that Uzoma was exclusively employed by the Church from 2004 to 2006 to render his 2015 tax return irrelevant. The May 2017 AAO decision focused solely on newly submitted evidence by the Church, not on previously considered tax returns. The Church claims the AAO improperly relied on Form I-213, which documents Uzoma's encounter with Customs and Border Patrol in March 2008, revealing that his R-1 status had expired and noting unauthorized employment. This form included details about Uzoma's computer business activities and the money he received for shipping computers. The AAO found that Uzoma's explanations for these shipments did not sufficiently counter the evidence in Form I-213.
Uzoma did not dispute his business registration or the receipt of funds for computer shipments, asserting instead that his motive was altruistic. However, the government argues that the evidence supports the AAO's decision, including business cards suggesting Uzoma's active role in business contrary to his claims of limited experience. The AAO emphasized that Uzoma's characterization of his computer business as "leisure" work, along with his reported earnings, indicated a profit motive.
Additionally, the Church argues that the AAO disregarded Uzoma's claim regarding wire-transfer notices and commercial invoices as irrelevant to business transactions, but the government asserts that this does not prove an abuse of discretion by the agency. Overall, the AAO's conclusion, which favored the weight of the evidence against the Church's arguments, is upheld as reasonable.
The AAO's decision emphasized the weight of wire transfer notices, bank statements, order confirmations, and a commercial invoice, demonstrating that Uzoma ordered over 60 computers from Dell for more than $47,000 on four occasions. Notably, Heph charged Caller's Spring $42,000 for computers worth $31,285.56, indicating an intent to profit. The Church's argument relied on Uzoma's affidavit and supporting affidavits, asserting that Uzoma's activities were solely ministerial; however, the record evidence contradicted this claim, indicating he engaged in secular employment. The government highlighted that the Church failed to prove Uzoma's exclusive role as a minister, as required under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(m)(7).
Uzoma registered businesses multiple times (Heph in 2004 and 2007, Cute Apparel in 2007) and possessed a credit card for Cute Apparel without providing adequate explanation for its use. His wife's testimony regarding his minimal involvement lacked supportive evidence. Uzoma claimed he registered Heph to buy more than five computers, but the record offered no basis for this assertion. The Church's reference to Nigerian money transfer limits lacked documentation, and evidence showed at least four computer shipments to Nigeria over eight months. The AAO found that Uzoma’s business activities and transactions demonstrated he was engaged in secular work, violating visa restrictions, and concluded that the Church did not meet its burden of proof.
The agency's determination is supported by evidence indicating that Uzoma purchased a large quantity of computers in the U.S. and sent them to Nigeria, receiving wire transfers in return, which suggested a business operation. Uzoma contended that he merely sent the computers for a friend and only recouped the costs. However, this explanation was undermined by evidence including credit cards, business registrations, and Uzoma's inconsistent statements. The agency concluded that Uzoma had engaged in secular employment, establishing a rational connection between the evidence and its decision. The court's review of the agency's findings is deferential, confirming that the decision was not implausible or arbitrary. Consequently, the Church's motion for summary judgment was denied, while the government’s motion was granted, resulting in the dismissal of the case with prejudice. Each party is to bear its own costs. The Church's argument regarding the debit card was unconvincing, as Uzoma could have provided documentation to clarify its use.
