Barry Reynolds, et al v. Loretta E. Lynch, et al (9th Cir. 6-23-2011 ) Complaint re AWA Denial of I-130.pdf

Case 8:11-cv-00936-CJC-RNB Document 1-2 Filed 06/23/11 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:4

and Safety Act of2006 (Adam Walsh Act), Pub. L. 109-248, to protect

2 children from sexual exploitation and violent crimes, to prevent child

3 abuse and child pornography, to promote Internet safety and to honor

4 the memory of Adam Walsh and other child crime victims."

5

6 The government ultimately denied the I-130 Petition contending the Adam Walsh Act applied to

7 plaintiff US citizen Barry Reynolds based on an allegation of an incident about twenty years earlier

8 and long before the May 2006 marriage between plaintiffs Barry Reynolds and Fu Yun Xu Reynolds

9 The defendants have never articulated how the Adam Walsh Act could in any way apply to Barry

10 Reynolds who is 66 years old, and Fu Yun Xu Reynolds who is 56 years old, the couple having lived

II together prior to the 2006 marriage and ever since then. The plaintiff wife has one child, an adult

12 son, who is about 30 years old, is married, and lives far away.

13 Plaintiffs contend defendants' denial of the 1-130 Petition based on the Adam Walsh Act

14 violates the plaintiffs' constitutional, statutory and regulatory rights, as well as DHS/CIS policies an

15 guidelines for implementing the Adam Walsh Act.

16 Jurisdiction

17 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the United States

18 Constitution, Amendment 5 (due process and equal protection); 28 USC sec. 1331, Federal Questio

19 Jurisdiction; 28 USC sec. 2201, the Declaratory Judgment Act; 5 USC sec. 702, et seq., the

20 Administrative Procedure Act; 28 USC sec. 1361, regarding an action to compel an officer of the

21 United States to perform his or her duty; and 8 USC sec. 1329, the Immigration and Nationality Ac

22 (INA)(providing for jurisdiction in this Court over actions arising under that Act).

23 In addition, this Court has the power under principles of equity to fashion a remedy which will

24 prevent irreparable harm to plaintiffs.

25 Venue

26 3. Venue lies in the Middle District of California, the judicial district where plaintiffs' Form I-130

27 Petition for Alien Relative was adjudicated and ultimately denied by defendant USCIS. Venue is

28 proper here because the events that gave rise to this case occurred in the Laguna Niguel, California

CV-126 (09/09) PLEADING PAGE FORA COMPLAINT 2

JoeW

Text Box

Reynolds v. Lynch, 12-55675 (9th Cir.) still pending en banc, as of 12/13/15, following earlier oral argument.

JoeW

Cross-Out

JoeW

Cross-Out

JoeW

Highlight


USCIS office.

2 Parties

3 4. Plaintiffs Barry Reynolds and Fu Yun Xu Reynolds, husband and wife, currently reside in the

4 Town of Derry, State of New Hampshire. Barry Reynolds is a United States citizen, while his wife

5 Fu Yun Xu Reynolds is a citizen of the PRC.

6 5. Defendant Janet Napolitano is sued in her official capacity as the duly appointed United States

7 Secretary of Homeland Security.

8 6. Defendant Christina Poulos is sued in her official capacity as the duly appointed Director of the

9 USCIS office in Laguna Niguel, California. This is the office which adjudicated and denied

I 0 plaintiffs' 1-130 Petition.

II 7. Defendant Eric Holder is sued in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the United

12 States.

13 Facts

14 8. Under the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA), Section 245 (8 USC sec. 1255), a United States

15 Citizen who marries an alien may file a Form I -130 Alien Relative Petition which is the first step in

16 obtaining Legal Permanent Residence (LPR) status for the alien.

17 9. On May 6, 2006, the plaintiffs were married in the United States. Plaintiff Barry Reynolds is a U

18 citizen and his wife Fu Yun Xu Reynolds is a citizen of the PRC.

19 10. Plaintiff Barry Reynolds was born on September 20, 1944 in Haverhill, Massachusetts.

20 11. Plaintiff Fu Yun Xu Reynolds was born on March 12, 1954 in the PRC. She has one child, a

21 son, by a prior marriage. The son, Yan Fu, was born on October 30, 1981 in the PRC and currently

22 resides with his wife in the United States.

23 12. In or about August 2006, plaintiff Barry Reynolds filed a Form 1-130 Alien Relative Petition

24 with USCIS on behalf of his wife Fu Yun Xu Reynolds.

25 13. On November 26, 2008 defendant USCIS of Laguna Niguel, California, issued a "Notice of

26 Intent to Deny" the 1-130 Petition on the basis of a recently enacted federal law, stating in part:

27 "On July 27, 2006, the President signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection

28 and Safety Act of 2006 (Adam Walsh Act), Pub. L. 109-248, to protect

CV-126 (09/09) PLEADI!Ii'G PAGE FOR A COMPLAINT 3


2

3

4

children from sexual exploitation and violent crimes, to prevent child

abuse and child pornography, to promote Internet safety and to honor

the memory of Adam Walsh and other child crime victims." See

attachment "A" hereto.

5 USCIS alleged plaintiff Barry Reynolds had been convicted of a "specified offense" in 1994 under

6 the Adam Walsh Act, and therefore was ineligible to flle an 1-130 Petition. Barry Reynolds was

7 given 87 days to respond to the notice.

8 14. During the time period allowed by USCIS to respond, plaintiff Barry Reynolds was suffering

9 from cancer and was undergoing treatment at a Veterans Affairs hospital which included

I 0 chemotherapy. Accordingly, plaintiff was unable to do much other than orally convey information

II to his counsel who then tried to track down records responsive to the USCIS request. See

12 attachment "B" hereto.

13 15. In responding to one request, the New Hampshire probation/parole officer responded:

14

15

16

17

"The records for your client Barry K. Reynolds are unavailable. Any

records that are over 8 years old are destroyed by the State.

Unfortunately, there is no way for you to obtain Mr. Reynolds

records. Sorry for this inconvenience." See attachment "C" hereto.

18 16. In March 2009 counsel for plaintiffs sent what he had gathered together with Barry Reynolds'

19 voluminous current medical records to USCIS with a request for additional time so that Mr.

20 Reynolds could gather further information after release from the hospital and completion of the

21 cancer treatments. See attachment "D" hereto.

22 17. On April30, 2009 USCIS issued a "Notice of Denial" refusing Barry Reynolds' request for

23 additional time due to medical necessity and, without explaining how a man in his 60s would pose

24 danger to a woman in her 50s under the Adam Walsh Act meant to protect children, and even

25 though the couple had cohabited at that time for more than four (4) years, USCIS ruled "USCIS has

26 determined that you do pose a risk to the safety and well-being of your intended beneficiary [wife

27 Fu Yun Xu Reynolds]." See attachment "E" hereto.

28 18. In this same denial, USCIS stated, "If you disagree with this decision, or if you have

CV-126(09/09) PLEADING PAGE FOR A COMPLAINT 4


additional evidence that you believe would overcome the reasons for denial, you may appeal this

2 decision by filing a completed Form EOIR-29 with the California Service Center within 30 days

3 from the date of this notice."

4 19. Plaintiffs timely ftled an appeal of the USCIS decision challenging the decision itself and also

5 providing "additional evidence that you believe would overcome the reasons for denial", as invited

6 by the USCIS denial decision. See attachment "F" hereto.

7 20. At the same time as filing the appeal, plaintiffs also timely filed a separate "motion to reopen

8 and a motion to reconsider a decision." See attachment "G" hereto.

9 21. On September 24, 2009, USCIS dismissed the motion but only addressed the motion to

I 0 reconsider in its reasons, and did not specifically address the motion to reopen. See attachment "H"

11 hereto.

12 22. On October 16, 2009, plaintiffs timely filed an appeal of the denial of the motions to reopen

13 and reconsider. See attachment "I" hereto.

14 23. In a bizarre turn of events, USCIS returned the second (October 2009) appeal form to plaintiffs

15 FOUR TIMES, first stating the correct filing fee was $585 (which was not true), and then asking for

16 explanations as to why the appeal was being filed. See attachment "J" hereto.

17 24. Finally, on June 14,2010, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which is within the US

18 Department of Justice, issued a decision stating in part "the CSC Director's determination that the

19 petitioner failed to prove that he poses no risk to the beneficiary is unreviewable by this Board."

20 See attachment "K" hereto. This ruling directly conflicts with the April 30, 2009 USCIS "Notice of

21 Denial" (attachment "E") which states in the final paragraph in part: "If you disagree with this

22 decision, or if you have additional evidence that you believe would overcome the reasons for denial,

23 you may appeal this decision by filing a completed Form EOIR-29 with the California Service

24 Center within 30 days from the date of this notice" and "If an appeal is not filed within the allowabl

25 timeframe, this decision is final" (emphasis added). Under the wording in the USCIS decision itself

26 the timely filing of an appeal means there is not a final administrative decision, and the losing party

27 is expressly invited to present additional evidence. Yet in the adjudication of the appeals, none of

28 this was taken into account but rather was deemed "unreviewable."

CV-126 (09/09) PLEADING PAGE FOR A COMPLAINT 5


Causes of Action

2 Count I -- Administrative Procedure

3 25. Paragraphs 1-24 are hereby realleged.

4 26. In its April 30, 2009 denial, USCIS simply notes plaintiff Barry Reynolds requested more time

5 to submit evidence, without stating Reynolds' basis for such request, and then, without stating a

6 reason, summarily concludes "additional time cannot be granted."

7 27. In his initial timely response to USCIS' request for evidence, plaintiff submitted his voluminous

8 several inch thick medical record from the VA documenting he was seriously ill with cancer, was

9 confined to a VA medical facility, and was undergoing chemotherapy, and therefore was not able

I 0 to gather the requested evidence.

II 28. Under these circumstances, USCIS' terse denial of additional time without articulating the

12 reasons for Mr. Reynolds' request, or any reasons for denying such request, was arbitrary,

13 capricious and unreasonable, and not in accordance with law and procedure.

14 29. Defendant USCIS' position is all the more unreasonable because {a) while Mr. Reynolds was in

15 the hospital, his attorney tried to gather records prior to the deadline but was informed by the New

16 Hampshire authorities the records had been destroyed due to the passage of time -- thereby

17 increasing the need for Mr. Reynolds' active involvement which he was unable to do because of his

18 serious illness and {b) USCIS held the 1-130 Petition for more than two years without informing

19 plaintiffs of the reason, and then issued the "Notice of Intent to Deny" while Mr. Reynolds was in

20 the midst of a personal medical crisis as documented by the extensive records provided to USCIS.

21 Count II -- Administrative Procedure

22 30. Paragraphs 1-29 above are hereby realleged.

23 31. INA sec. 204{a}(l)(A){viii) [8 USC sec. 1154] provides that ifa US citizen has been convicted

24 of a specified offense against a minor, the Secretary of Homeland Security, "in the Secretary's sole

25 and unreviewable discretion", will determine whether the citizen poses a risk to the alien beneficiary

26 of an application such as an 1-130 Petition.

27 32. Procedures for determinations under the Adam Walsh Act were set out on February 8, 2007

28 Michaeel Aytes, Associate Director for Domestic Operations at USCIS, in an interoffice

CV-126(09/09) PLEADII'OG PAGE FOR A COMPLAINT 6


memorandum entitled "Guidance for Adjudication of Family-Based Petitions and I-129F Petition

2 for Alien Fiance( e) under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (hereinafter

3 "Aytes Memo").

4 33. The Aytes Memo provides that if there is a denial by the agency under the Adam Walsh Act,

5 there must be a clear factual articulation including the following factors: the relationship of the

6 petitioner to the principal beneficiary and any derivative beneficiary; the age and gender of the

7 beneficiary; the significant passage of time between the behavior and the submission of the petition;

8 the petitioner's criminal history other than the alleged offense under the Adam Walsh Act. None

9 of this is articulated in the users denial decision.

10 34. In addition, in the April 30, 2009 USCIS Notice of Denial, the final paragraph states "if you

II have additional evidence that you believe would overcome the reasons for denial", the party may

12 appeal the decision. Plaintiff Barry Reynolds did appeal the decision and attached a Statement of

13 Reasons for the Appeal and signed affidavits of his wife and himself. In his May 26, 2009 affidavit,

14 Barry Reynolds states:

15 "I have recently been going through some serious medical problems

16 with cancer and chemotherapy. Now that I am able, I attempted to find

17 the state court appointed counselor that I had in New Hampshire in the

18 mid-1990s. This was the counseling ordered as a result of the New

19 Hampshire court case involving a minor female. I attended the

20 counseling sessions during 1994, 1995 and 1996 and received a

21 graduation certificate. I attended these sessions once a week for

22 1-2 hours; there were both group and private sessions. Because of

23 the number of years that passed and the fact I had moved at one

24 time, I had no paperwork from the earlier time period. This year,

25 2009, I went to the building in Salem, New Hampshire where the

26 counseling sessions had occurred. The counseling company was no

27 longer there. I asked some people in the building if they knew where

28 the counselor or counselling practice had gone, and no on knew.



2

3

4

Unfortunately after all these years I do not remember the name of

the counselor (a female) or the counseling service. My purpose was

to find the counselor and have her write a statement about my

counseling."

5 35. The Aytes Memo also states a factor to be considered is the degree of rehabilitation or behavior

6 modification evidenced by completion of counseling or rehabilitation programs. Despite Mr.

7 Reynolds' sworn statement and physical efforts to obtain the records from the Salem, NH

8 counseling service which is no longer there, there is nothing to show USCIS took this factor into

9 account in reaching its decision.

I 0 36. Accordingly, defendants did not follow their own procedures and therefore as a matter of

11 administrative law, defendants' decisions are arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and contrary to

12 law and fact.

13 37. This is all the more so because it has been noted "in many cases older records will no longer be

14 available, or they will be incomplete or inaccurate." Logan, The Adam Walsh Act and the Failed

15 Promise of Administrative Federalism, 78 Geo Wash L Rev 993, 1003 (2009-2010). In their denial

16 decision, defendants did not factor in the facts that (a) while Barry Reynolds was undergoing cancer

17 treatment, his counsel tried to obtain the relevant records from the State of New Hampshire and

18 was told they had been destroyed due to the passage of time, and (b) when he was able to get out

19 of the hospital and physically function, Barry Reynolds went to the counseling service in Salem,

20 NH to obtain his records and found out the business no longer existed.

21 Count III -- Administrative Procedure


23 39. As stated, plaintiffs ftled motions to reopen and reconsider in addition to the appeal from the

24 USCIS decision.

25 40. In denying the motions, USCIS addressed only the motion to reconsider on the merits and not

26 the motion to reopen.

27 41. Such procedure was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and contrary to applicable law.

.28 Count IV -- Administrative Procedure



42. Paragraphs 1-37 above are hereby realleged.

2 43. In its April30, 2009 Notice of Denial, USCIS stated plaintiffs could file an appeal with

3 "additional evidence that you believe would overcome the reasons for denial'' and also stated that if

4 such appeal was not taken "this decision is fmal." Plaintiffs timely filed the appeal but none of their

5 arguments or evidence was addressed. Essentially the BIA ruled the USCIS decision was

6 unreviewable, meaning the appeal rights provided were illusory.

7 Count V -- Administrative Procedure


9 45. Defendant Secretary of Homeland Security did not exercise discretion in this case because there

I 0 is no evidence the facts and factors laid out by the Aytes Memo were considered or articulated by

11 the agency. "Discretion" does not include "unbridled discretion" outside of the legal and procedural

12 framework set out by the agency.

13 Count VI -- Statutory Interpretation


15 47. In its denial decision, USCIS stated the purposes of the Adam Walsh Act as follows:

16 "On July 27, 2006, the President signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection

17 and Safety Act of2006 (Adam Walsh Act), Pub. L. 109-248, to protect

18 children from sexual exploitation and violent crime, to prevent child

19 abuse and child pornography, to promote Internet safety and to honor

20 the memory of Adam Walsh and other child crime victims."

21 Defendants have not articulated any facts in the instant plaintiffs' case which would have

22 anything to do with the stated purposes of the Adam Walsh Act.

23 48. In addition, defendants have not identified a basis for use of the "beyond a reasonable doubt"

24 standard either in the Adam Walsh Act itself or as applied to the facts of the instant plaintiffs' case.

25 Count VII -- Constitutional Violations


27 50. Plaintiffs have a right to due process and equal protection of the laws under the

28 United States Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment thereto. The courts have also

CV-126 (09/09) PLEADING PAGE FORA COMPLAINT 9

JoeW

Highlight

JoeW

Highlight

JoeW

Highlight

JoeW

Highlight

JoeW

Accepted

JoeW

Accepted


recognized a fundamental "zone of privacy" which includes a right to marry. If plaintiff Barry

2 Reynolds may not me an I-130 Petition for his alien wife, she would be subject to deportation or

3 removal from the United States, thereby burdening the marriage even though, as stated above, the

4 stated purposes of the Adam Walsh Act have nothing to do with the facts of plaintiffs' case. In

5 addition, plaintiff Fu Yun Xu Reynolds' statutory and due process rights to me and/or benefit from

6 applications under the immigration laws are violated when such rights are burdened by a federal

7 Act whose stated purposes have nothing to do with the facts of plaintiffs' case.

8 51. There is no rational basis for applying the Adam Walsh Act to plaintiffs and, given the

9 fundamental rights involved, application of such Act to the facts of this case should be subject to

I 0 heightened and strict scrutiny

II Prayers for Relief

12 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request the Court grant the following relief:

13 1. Declare defendants' acts and failures to act as described above are arbitrary, capricious,

14 an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.

15 2. Declare defendants' acts and failures to act are in excess of statutory jurisdiction,

16 authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.

I7 3. Declare defendants have not followed the procedures required by law.

18 4. Declare defendants' acts and failures to act as described above violate plaintiffs' rights

19 under the United States Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment thereto.

20 5. Award plaintiffs their attorneys fees and costs under 28 USC sec. 2412(d) and 5 USC

21 sec. 504 et seq.

22

23

24

6. Such other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. . . /

25 9 June 2011

26

27

28

CV-126 (09/09)

...... -, I' .,.

Resp.,ecifif.u.ll ~J>rilitted, . ,/. /. L!?> // ///~ /h~' ,/ ·; 7/ -~

/ ?( &4~~---· [. ' :/ ?'~1 WILLIAM A. HAHN, BBO #216690

HAHN & MATKOV

101 Tremont St., Suite 1106, Boston, MA 02108

1-617-338-8333

PLEADING PAGE FOR A COl\lPLAINT 10

JoeW

Highlight

JoeW

Highlight


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY

This case has been assigned to District Judge Cormac J. Carney and the assigned discovery Magistrate Judge is Robert N. Block.

The case number on all documents filed with the Court should read as follows:

SACVll- 936 CJC (RNBx)

Pursuant to General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Magistrate Judge has been designated to hear discovery related motions.

All discovery related motions should be noticed on the calendar of the Magistrate Judge

===~===================================:

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and complaint on all defendants (if a removal action is filed, a copy of this notice must be served on all plaintiffs).

Subsequent documents must be filed at the following location:

U Western Division 312 N. Spring St., Rm. G-8 Los Angeles, CA 90012

[X] Southern Division U 411 West Fourth St., Rm. 1-053 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516

Failure to file at the proper location will result in your documents being retumed to you.

Eastern Division 3470 Twelfth St., Rm.134 Riverside, CA 92501

CV-18 (03/06) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY

JoeW

Highlight

JoeW

Highlight


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL COVER SHEET

I (a) PLAINTIFFS (Check box if you are representing yourselfO) DEFENDANTS

Barry Reynolds Fu Yun Xu Reynolds

Janet Napolitano, US Sec'y of Homeland Securit) Eric Holder, US Atty. Gen., Christine Poulos. USCIS Director

(b) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number. If you are representing Attorneys (If Known) yourself, provide same.)

William A. Hahn, Hahn & Matkov US Attorney 101 Tremont St., Suite 1106, Boston, MA 1-617-338-8333 02108

IL BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.) Ill. CmZENSWP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIF..S • For Diversity a-s Only {Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant.)

0 I U.S. Government Plaintiff 0 3 Federal Question (U.S. PTF DEF PTF DEF Government Not a Party) Citizen ofThis State 01 01 Incorporated or Principal Place 04 04

of Business in this State

JCa U.S. Govcrrunent Defendant 0 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship Citizen of Another State 02 02 Incorporated and Principal Place 05 OS of Parties in Item lll) of Business in Another State

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 06 06

IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.)

J§CJ Original 0 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Tmnsferrcd from another district (specify): 0 6 Multi- 0 7 Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judge

Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened District Litigation

V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND: 0 Yes jQ No (Check 'Yes' only if demanded in complaint.)

CLASS ACTION under F.R.C.P.l3: 0 Yes Ill No 0 MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: S N/ A

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.) s·usc sec. 705 et seq (APA), to review decisions of US Citizenship & Immigration Services

VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X In one box only.)

OTIIER STA 11JTES CONTRACT TORTS TORTS PRISONER LABOR 0 400 State ReapportiOIIIJleJlt 0 II 0 lnsiUlUICC PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL PETITIONS 0710 Fair Labor Standards 0 410 Antitrust 0120 Marine 0310 Airplane PROPERTY OSlO Motionsto Act 0 430 Banks and Banking 0 130 Miller Act 0315 Airplane Product 0 370 Other Fraud Vacate Sentence 0 720 l.abor/Mgmt. 0 450 CornmercciiCC 0 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0 371 Truth in Lending Habeas Corpus Relations

Rates/etc. 0 ISO Recovery of 0320 Assault, Libel & 0 380 Other Personal 0530 General 0 730 Labor/Mgmt. 0 460 Deportation Overpayment & Slander Property Damage 0535 Death Penalty Reporting& 0 470 Racketeer Influenced Enforcement of 0330 Fed. Employers' 0 385 Property Damage 0540 Mandamus/ Disclosure Act

and Corrupt Judgment Liability Product Liability Other 0 740 Railway Labor Act Organizations 0151 McdiClfC Act 0340 Marine BANKRUPTCY 0 550 Civil Rights 0 790 Other Labor

0345 Marine Product 0 480 Consumer Credit 0152 Recovery of Defaulted

Liability 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 0 555 Prison Condition Litigation

0 490 Cable/Sat TV Student Loan (Excl. 0350 Motor Vehicle 158 FORFEITURE I 0 791 F.mpl. Rct.lnc.

0810 Selective Service Vetemns) 0355 Motor Vehicle 0 423 Withdrawal28 PENALTY Security Act 0850 Securities/Commodities/ 0153 Recovery of Product Liability usc 157 0 610 Agriculture PROPERTY RIGHTS

Exchange 0\'Cipllyrnent of 0360 Other Personal CIVIL RIGHTS 0 620 Other Food & 0 820 Copyrights 0875 Customer Challenge 12 Veteran's Benefits Injury 0441 Voting Drug 0 830 Patent

USC3410 0 160 Stockholders' Suits 0362 PeiSonal Injury- 0442 Employment 0625 Drug Related 0 840 Trademark 0 890 Other Statutory Actions 0 190 Other Contract Med Malpractice 0443 llousing/Acco- Seizure of SOCIAL SECURITY 0 891 Agricultural Act 0 195 Contract Product 0365 Personal Injury· mmodations Property21 usc 0 861 HIA ( 1395ff) 0 892 Economic Stabilization Liability Product Liability 0444 Welfare 881 0 862 Black Lung (923)

Act 0 196 Franchise 0368 Asbestos Personal 0445 American \\ith 0 630 Liquor Laws 0 863 DIWCIDIWW 0893 Environmental Matters REAL PROPERTY Injury Product Disabilities - 0 640 R.R. & Truck (40S(g)) 0894 Energy Allocation Act 0 210 Land Condemnation Liability Employment 0 650 Airline Regs 0 864 SSID Title XVI 0 895 Freedom oflnfo. Act 0220 Foreclosure LVJMIGRATION 0446 American with 0 660 Occupational 0 865 RSI (405(g)) 0 900 Appeal of Fee Dctermi- 0230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0462 Naturnlization Disabilities - Safety /Health FEDERAL TAX SUITS

nation Under f:qual 0240 Torts to Land Application Other 0 690 Other 0 870 Taltes (U.S. Plaintiff Access to Justice 0245 Tort Product Liability 0463 Habeas Col]lUS- 0 440 Other Civil or Defendant)

0 950 Constitutionality of 0290 All Other Real Property Alien Detainee Rights 0871 IRS-Third Party 26 State Statutes ~46S Other Immigration USC7609

Aclions

SA CVI I =00936 FOROmCE USE ONLY: Case Number:--------------------------

AFTER COMPLETING THE FRONT SIDE OF FORM CV-71, COMPLETE TilE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW.

CV-71 (05108) CIVIL COVER SHEET Page I of2

JoeW

Highlight

JoeW

Highlight

JoeW

Highlight

JoeW

Text Box

CSC

JoeW

Highlight

JoeW

Highlight

JoeW

Text Box

BIA


.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFOR.i'IIA CIVIL COVER SIIEET

Vlll(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previotL~Iy tiled in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed? XM'!o 0 Yes lfyes, listcasenumber(s): _______________________________________________ _

VIII (b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present casc1Q§ No 0 Yes

If yes, listcasenumber(s): ------------------------------------------------

Civil cases are deemed related if a previously filed case and the present case:

(Check all boxes that apply) 0 A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or

0 B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions oflaw and fact; or

0 C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication oflabor if heard by different judges; or

0 D. Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright, and one of the factors identified above in a, b or c also is present.

IX. VENUE: (When completing the following information, use an additional sheet if necessary.)

(a) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACII named plaintiff resides. 0 Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named plaintiff. If this box is checked, go to item (b).

County in tb.is District:• California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country

New Hampshire

(b) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACII named defendant resides. ~ Check here if the ROVernment, its qencies or C11lllloyees is a named defendant. If this box is checked. 20 to item (c).

County in this District:• California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country

(c) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim llJ"IlSe,

Note· In land condemnation cases use the location of the tnct of land Involved . . County in tb.is District:• California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country

City of Laguna Niguel (Orange County?)

* Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Rlvenlde, Ventura, S Note: In land condemnation cases use the location of the

Notice to CounseVPartles: The CV • 71 (JS Civil Cover Sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3-1 is not filed but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see sepamte instructions sheet.}

Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:

Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation

861 HIA

862 BL

863 DIWC

863 DIWW

864 SSID

865 RSI

CV·71 (05/08)

Substantive Statement or Cause or Action

All claints for health insurnnce benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended. Also, include claims by·hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for cenification as providers of services under the program. (42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b})

All claims for "Black Lung~ bencfil~ under Title 4, Pan B. of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. (30 u.s.c. 923)

All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended; plus all claims filed for child's insumnce benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405(g))

All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405(g))

All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disabilily filed under Title 16 of the Social Security Act, as amended.

All claims for retirement (old age) and sun·ivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 u.s.c. (g))

CIVIL COVER SHEET Page 2 of2

JoeW

Highlight

JoeW

Highlight

JoeW

Highlight

News & Politics

Barry Reynolds, et al v. Loretta E. Lynch, et al (9th Cir. 6-23-2011 ) Complaint re AWA Denial of I-130.pdf