Momoh Bangura v. William P. Barr ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1313
MOMOH BANGURA; FATMATA BANGURA,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; KIMBERLY ZANOTTI, Field Office
Director; SARAH TAYLOR, District Director; CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security; KEN CUCCINELLI, Acting Director, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01290-CMH-IDD)
Submitted: October 24, 2019 Decided: November 15, 2019
Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Beach-Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES, PC,
Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, William
C. Peachey, Director, Gisela A. Westwater, Assistant Director, Brian C. Ward, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Momoh Bangura and Fatmata Bangura appeal the district court’s memorandum
opinion and order denying their motion for summary judgment and granting summary
judgment to the Defendants. We affirm.
The Banguras commenced an action in district court challenging the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) decision denying the I-130 petition for
alien relative filed by Fatmata Bangura on Momoh Bangura’s behalf. We review an order
granting summary judgment de novo. Roland v. USCIS, 850 F.3d 625, 628 (4th Cir. 2017).
We “apply the same legal standards as the district court” applied in reaching its decision.
Id. Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
“Under the [Administrative Procedures Act (APA)]’s deferential standard, the
reviewing court shall ‘hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and
conclusions’ that are ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law.’” Perez v. Cissna, 914 F.3d 846, 852 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting 5
U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2012)). In making this determination, the reviewing court “must
ensure that the agency has examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory
explanation for its action.” Id. (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). The
agency’s factual findings must be supported by substantial evidence. Ogbolumani v.
Napolitano, 557 F.3d 729, 733 (7th Cir. 2009) (noting that challenger to administrative
decision must show that evidence was inadequate to support the decision). “Substantial
evidence exists to support a finding unless the evidence was such that any reasonable
3
adjudicator would have been compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Djadjou v. Holder,
662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir. 2011) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). We
cannot reweigh evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for
the agency’s. Prof’l Massage Training Ctr., Inc., v. Accreditation All. of Career Schs. &
Colls., 781 F.3d 161, 174-75 (4th Cir. 2015). “The ultimate standard of review is a narrow
one.” Holly Hill Farm Corp. v. United States, 447 F.3d 258, 263 (4th Cir. 2006) (alteration
and internal quotation marks omitted). Our narrow task is to determine if “the agency
conformed with controlling statutes, and whether the agency has committed a clear error
of judgment.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Banguras challenge the agency’s decision to consider evidence showing that
Momoh Bangura had entered into a prior marriage in order to gain an immigration benefit,
a finding that compelled the denial of the I-130 petition. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) (2012).
Essentially, the Banguras want this court to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. Id.
We conclude that the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. While the
Banguras raise various challenges to the agency’s decision to investigate a prior marriage,
the Banguras do not cite any error of law.
Because the USCIS’ decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or an error of law, we
affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4