COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

 DOROTHY PIERCE          Plaintiff vs. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS)                       Defendants           CASE NO.:         COMPLAINT  

COMES NOW Plaintiff DOROTHY PIERCE, with this complaint against the Defendant, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (hereinafter “USCIS”), and states as follows: 

PARTIES

  1. Plaintiff, DOROTHY PIERCE of address 708 Mourning Dove Lane, Seneca, SC. 29678 is the owner of American Pharma Machinery, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina.
  2. Defendant, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICE of address Greer (GRR) 501 Pennsylvania Avenue Greer, SC 29650 is federal agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.

JURISDICITON AND VENUE

  • This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives District Court’s jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution and Federal laws.
  • Venue is proper in this court as Plaintiff and the Defendant are subject to personal jurisdiction in this state. Notably, Plaintiff lives within the jurisdiction of this Court, and the Defendant conducts its operations in this State. Besides, a substantial part of the allegations forming the basis of these claims occurred in this County.  

FACTS

  • On or about July 10, 2017, William Wells (deceased) filed Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, with the USCIS on behalf of the Plaintiff. William Wells sought to classify Plaintiff as the spouse pursuant to Section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (hereinafter “INA”).
  • On February 7, 2018, the Plaintiff appeared before the Defendant to acertain whether the Petition could be adjuidacted under Section 204(1) of INA.
  • On or about August 9, 2018, the Defendant issued a Notice of Intention to Deny the said Petition.
  • On October 31, 2018, the said Petition was denied on the grounds that the Defendant had found an email written by William Wells to his children that he had married the Plaintiff so that Plaintiff obtains a “green card”. Accordingly, the Defendant alleged that no bona fide marriage existed between Plaintiff and William Wells.
  • On or about December 28, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an Appeal to the Board of Immigraiton Appeals (hereinafter “BIA”), challenging the decision of the Defendant.
  • On or about March 15, 2021, the BIA dismissed Plaintiff’s Appeal, upholing the decision of the Defendant herein.
  • On or about September 1, 2020, Doyle Elton Pierce filed Form I-130, Petition for Petition for Alien Relative, with the USCIS on behalf of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought to be classified as the beneficiary to the deceased under INA 204(1) and Policy Memorandum 602-0126.
  • On or about July 9, 2021, Plaintiff was interviewed by the Defendant’s officials, who raised the issue that Mr. Wells’s Petition had been denied due to failure to satisfy a bona fide marriage.
  • On or about September 21, 2021, the Plaintiff was issued a Notice of Intention to Deny the Petition. 
  • On or about February 1, 2022, the Defendant made a decision on the said Plaintiff’s application. The Defendant denied Plaintiff’s Petition on the grounds that the Plaintiff and William Wells entered the marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws under INA 204(c), and Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, section 204.2(a)(1)(ii).   
  • On or about September 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status with the Defendant pursuant to Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (hereinafter “INA”). Plaintiff filed the said Petition on the basis of being the beneficiary of a US Citizen.
  • On or about July 9, 2021, the Plaintiff appeared for an interview to determine eligibility for the adjustment of status. In the interview, the Plaintiff testified that the contents in Form I-485 were true.
  • On or about February 1, 2022, the Defendant made a decision on the said Plaintiff’s application. The Defendant denied Plaintiff’s Petition on the grounds that the Defendant had previously denied a visa petition that had been filed on Plaintiff’s behalf. Defendant alleged that Plaintiff and the deceased entered the marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws under INA 204(c), and Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, section 204.2(a)(1)(ii). 
  • Plaintiff therefore files this Complaint against the Defendant. Plaintiff avers that her rights have been infringed by the Defendant for failure to appreciate Plaintiff’s evidence of a bona fide marriage, and fpr denying Plaintiff’s Petition. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT 1

VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S 5th and 14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS

  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully stated herein.
  2.  Immigration cases, although not subject to the full range of constitutional protections, must conform to the Constitution’s  requirement of due process.” See Ghilamichael Zerezghi et al v. USCIS et al, 955 F.3d at 813;  see also Salgado-Diaz v. Gonzales, 395 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2005). Due process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be evenhanded, so that individuals are not subjected to the arbitrary exercise of government power. Accordingly, due process requires, at a minimum: (1) notice; (2) an opportunity to be heard; and (3) an impartial tribunal. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011); see also Ching v. Mayorkas, 725 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2013).
  3. In the instant action, the Defendant violated Plaintiff’s due process rights when it failed to appreciate Plaintiff’s evidence that proved that a marriage relationship existed between Plaintiff and William Wells. For instance, Plaintiff presented evidence of text messages between Plaintiff and William Wells, which messages explicityly prove that a marriage relationship existed thereby. Plaintiff avers that if the said evidence is considered subjectively, the Defendant would have arrived at a different decision.    
  4. Plaintiff further avers that she is a victim of fraud. Notably, Plaintiff never knew that William Wells had written the email to his children that alleged that he (William) only married the Plaintiff so that Plaintif gets the green card. William Wells also denied that he had no sexual relations with the Plaintiff. Instead, cruciual evidence exists to show the reality that Plaintiff and William Wells were indeed in a valid marriage relationship.
  5. As a result of the denial of Plaintiff’s Petition, Plaintiff is unable to obtain an adjustment of her status, which she is entitled to. Further, the said denial(s) have drastic implications on Plaintiff because removal proceedings may be preferred against her. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover from the Defendant’s action(s) and/or inaction(s) as alleged herein.  

COUNT 2

VIOLATING PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS UNDER COLOUR OF LAW

  • .S.C. § 1983)
  • Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully stated herein.
  • Victims of a violation of the Federal Constitution by a federal officer have a right under Bivens to recover damages against the officer in federal court despite the absence of any statutory basis for such a right. See Presti v. Wolf, No. 18C1710 (7th Cir. 2020); see alsoBivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
  • As already alleged above, the Defendant violated Plaintiff’s due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Plaintiff has duly satisfied her burden of proof that a bona fide marriage indeed existed between William Wells and Plaintiff. However, the Defendant failed to appreciate the weight of evidence adduced by the Plaintiff to that effect.
  • As a result of the denial of Plaintiff’s Petition, Plaintiff is unable to obtain an adjustment of her status, which she is entitled to. Further, the said denial(s) have drastic implications on Plaintiff because removal proceedings may be preferred against her. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover from the Defendant’s action(s) and/or inaction(s) as alleged herein.  

COUNT 3

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

  • Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully stated herein.
  • The action(s) and/or inaction(s) of the Defendant as set forth above was extreme, and outrageous.
  • The Defendant ought to have reasonably known that the actions and/or inactions would cause severe harm on Plaintiff.
  • The Defendant failed to consider the adverse effects of the action(s) and/or inaction(s)  on Plaintiff.
  • As a result of the Defendant’s action(s) and/or inaction(s), Plaintiff is unable to obtain an adjustment of her status, which she is entitled to. Further, the said denial(s) have drastic implications on Plaintiff because removal proceedings may be preferred against her. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover from the Defendant’s action(s) and/or inaction(s) as alleged herein.   

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff is entitled to damages from the Defendants, and she hereby prays that judgment be entered in his favor and against the Defendants as follows:

Complainant seeks the following remedies:

  1. That the Court holds that a bona fide marriage existed between Plaintiff and William Wells.
  2. That the Court orders damages amounting, in an amount to be determined by the Court.
  3. That the Court issues any other order that this institution deems just.

Respectfully submitted:


Dated: __________

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I, [ENTER NAME], certified on this ______day of ________ 2022, I deposited a true copy of the above to the Defendant by placing the document with prepaid postage in the United States mailbox address.

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )