Anesh Gupta v. U.S. Attorney General

A

USCA11 Case: 20-12811 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 1 of 11 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-12811 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:13-cv-01027-PGB-LRH ANESH GUPTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS), U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS), FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, ORLANDO FIELD OFFICE, USCIS, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (July 16, 2021) USCA11 Case: 20-12811 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 2 of 11 Before: WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Anesh Gupta, a pro se litigant, is a citizen of India who was previously granted a ten-year multiple entry visa. Before the expiration of that visa, he alleged that he had married a U.S. citizen. She had submitted a visa petition on Gupta’s behalf, after which Gupta applied to adjust his immigration status. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service denied both the visa petition and Gupta’s application on the basis of marriage fraud. Upon denial of Gupta’s petition, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. Gupta then filed suit in the district court and alleged that the government violated 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(vii), the APA, his marital privacy rights, and his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment in an attempt to change his immigration status. The district court granted summary judgment for the government and denied Gupta’s motion for relief from judgment, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3), and his accompanying motions for an evidentiary hearing and for a stay under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702. On appeal, Gupta argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment against him because he was in the midst of removal proceedings and because his putative wife was not joined to the district court proceedings. Gupta also argues that he had proven that the government committed fraud on the court by 2 USCA11 Case: 20-12811 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 3 of 11 omitting material from the certified administrative record, that the court should have held an evidentiary hearing to discover the full extent of the alleged fraud, and that the court should have stayed its judgment. His arguments are meritless. We agree with the district court and affirm. I. We presume familiarity with the factual and procedural history and describe it below only to the extent necessary to address the issues raised in this appeal. This appeal is the latest entry in Gupta’s lengthy immigration dispute. The heart of the matter is that the government denied Gupta’s application for adjustment of status and his putative wife’s visa petition on his behalf. Because Gupta challenges the federal courts’ jurisdiction over this matter, we briefly list the relevant dates in the parallel administrative and judicial proceedings as follows. In 2009, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service denied the Form I-130 visa petition filed on Gupta’s behalf. The basis …

Original document

Add comment

By

Recent Posts

Recent Comments