Clarification of Jurisdictional and Evidentiary Standards in I-130 Marriage Fraud Denials Under 8 U.S.C. §1154(c)

Introduction

In Stacey Watson v. Attorney General United States of America, No. 24-2290 (3rd Cir. May 8, 2025), the Third Circuit addressed two interrelated questions: (1) the proper jurisdictional channel for reviewing the denial of an I-130 petition when the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not issue a final removal order, and (2) the standards by which an immigration agency may find a prior marriage fraudulent under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c). Stacey Watson, a U.S. citizen proceeding pro se, sought to sponsor her husband “K.S.” (an Indian national) for adjustment of status. USCIS denied the petition on the ground of marriage fraud based on K.S.’s prior union. Watson challenged that denial in the immigration courts, then in federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and finally on appeal. The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Government.

Summary of the Judgment

The Third Circuit’s per curiam decision resolved three central points:

Jurisdiction: The court confirmed that denials of I-130 petitions by the BIA—when not tied to a final removal order—are reviewable in federal district court under the APA, not directly in this Court of Appeals.
Waiver of Unraised Issues: Arguments not presented to the agency (e.g., “extreme hardship” under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.58) are deemed waived and cannot be considered on judicial review.
Marriage Fraud Standard: The agency’s finding that K.S.’s prior marriage was fraudulent was supported by “substantial and probative” evidence—most critically, K.S.’s own sworn admissions at a port-of-entry inspection.

Consequently, the Third Circuit held that the agency’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious and that the district court properly awarded summary judgment to the Government.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Ruiz v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 269 (2d Cir. 2009): Held that denials of I-130 petitions are not final orders of removal and thus not directly reviewable in the courts of appeals.
Chehazeh v. Attorney General, 666 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 2012): Confirmed district courts’ jurisdiction under the APA to review BIA decisions that are not final removal orders.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983): Established the narrow scope of “arbitrary and capricious” review under the APA.
In re Tawfik, 20 I. & N. Dec. 166 (BIA 1990): Defined “substantial and probative evidence” to support an adverse finding in immigration petition fraud reviews.
In re Soriano, 19 I. & N. Dec. 764 (BIA 1988): Clarified that the central inquiry in marriage fraud investigations is the couple’s intent to establish a life together at the time of marriage.
In re Singh, 27 I. & N. Dec. 598 (BIA 2019): Emphasized that direct admissions of a fraudulent marriage, including financial arrangements to deceive immigration authorities, constitute substantial evidence.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Third Circuit’s opinion rests on three pillars:

Jurisdictional Proper Venue: Following Ruiz and Chehazeh, the court held that an I-130 denial not tied to removal falls outside the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9). The district court was the correct forum under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the APA.
Issue Preservation: Under settled administrative-law doctrine (e.g., Nuclear Energy Inst. v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 2004)), a court will not consider arguments not squarely raised before the agency—here, Watson’s extreme-hardship contention.
Substantial Evidence of Fraud: USCIS and the BIA reasonably concluded that K.S.’s prior marriage was a sham. Key admissions at the port-of-entry inspection—payment of $5,000, falsified lease and insurance documents, and false statements to officers—constituted “substantial and probative” proof of marriage fraud. Subsequent efforts to recant those admissions as coerced did not overcome the weight of the original sworn declaration.

3. Impact

The decision has several important implications:

Clarity on Review Pathways: Affirming the district court’s APA jurisdiction over I-130 denials provides a clear procedural roadmap for petitioners when the BIA’s ruling does not constitute a final order of removal.
Stricter Preservation Rule: Noncitizens and their sponsors must present all substantive arguments and statutory grounds to the immigration agencies or risk waiver on review.
Reliance on Admissions: Immigration authorities may place decisive weight on sworn admissions of fraud at entry inspections. Petitioners should be prepared to contest the voluntariness and accuracy of such statements before the agency.
Limits of Hardship Claims: Provisions for “extreme hardship” (8 C.F.R. § 1240.58) do not apply to adjustment petitions outside formal removal proceedings, narrowing the relief available to family-based petitioners.

Complex Concepts Simplified

I-130 Petition: The form used by a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident to sponsor a foreign relative for permanent residence (“green card”).
Final Order of Removal: A conclusive determination by an immigration court or the BIA that a noncitizen must leave the United States; only such orders are generally reviewable in the courts of appeals.
Arbitrary and Capricious Standard: Under the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)), courts defer to agencies so long as their decisions rest on a reasoned explanation and a factual record.
Substantial and Probative Evidence: A threshold requiring that the documentary or testimonial record, when viewed in its entirety, reasonably supports an agency’s adverse finding.
Issue Waiver: If a party fails to raise an argument before the administrative body, courts typically refuse to consider it on appeal or in judicial review.

Conclusion

Stacey Watson v. Attorney General reinforces critical principles in family‐based immigration law: the proper venue for review of non-removal decisions, the necessity of presenting all statutory and factual arguments to the agency, and the exacting standard for proving marriage fraud. By upholding the agency’s reliance on direct admissions of fraud and confirming waiver of unraised claims, the Third Circuit has provided both clarity and cautionary guidance for future I-130 petitioners and their legal counsel.