Basil v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

D.C. Circuit

Basil v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

708 F. App'x 697

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 3, 2018

DocketNo. 17-5034

StatusPublished

This text of 708 F. App'x 697 (Basil v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Basil v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services, 708 F. App'x 697 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s February 17, 2017 order be affirmed. Appellant argues that the government made misstatements in the correspondence preceding the final denial of his Form 1-360 visa petition. However, these errors were corrected by the government before it issued its final denial. See Resp. Br., Ex. B at 2-4 (October 13, 2015 final denial of appellant’s petition). In addition, appellant has not demonstrated that the government engaged in “affirmative misconduct” or that he reasonably relied on the government’s misstatements such that the government should be equitably es-topped from denying his Form 1-360 petition. See Morris Comm’ns, Inc. v. FCC, 566 F.3d 184, 191 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Finally, appellant has not shown that the denial of his Form 1-360 petition, based on his failure to establish that his marriages were entered into in good faith, was arbitrary or capricious.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s February 17, 2017 order be affirmed. Appellant argues that the government made misstatements in the correspondence preceding the final denial of his Form 1-360 visa petition. However, these errors were corrected by the government before it issued its final denial. See Resp. Br., Ex. B at 2-4 (October 13, 2015 final denial of appellant’s petition). In addition, appellant has not demonstrated that the government engaged in “affirmative misconduct” or that he reasonably relied on the government’s misstatements such that the government should be equitably es-topped from denying his Form 1-360 petition. See Morris Comm’ns, Inc. v. FCC, 566 F.3d 184, 191 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Finally, appellant has not shown that the denial of his Form 1-360 petition, based on his failure to establish that his marriages were entered into in good faith, was arbitrary or capricious.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 F. App'x 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basil-v-united-states-citizenship-immigration-services-cadc-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack