CA9 on Due Process: Ching v. Mayorkas

"[T]he process by which Joseph’s I-130 petition was denied was inadequate.  There were two witnesses to the Fong-Ching marriage: Fong and Ching. In this case, it is not possible to determine that Fong’s statement is true and that Ching’s is false solely by reading them. In addition, Ching presented substantial and–at this stage–uncontested documentary evidence to corroborate her claim that the marriage was bona fide. Therefore, under the specific circumstances of this case, due process required a hearing with an opportunity for Ching to confront the witnesses against her.

Therefore, we must reverse the district court with instructions to remand the case to the agency for the purpose of holding an evidentiary hearing.

In sum, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the APA claims. It erred in granting summary judgment on the procedural due process claim. We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to the due
process claim, and direct it to remand the case to the agency so that the agency may hold an evidentiary hearing. Costs on appeal shall be awarded to Plaintiffs-Appellants. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS." - Ching v. Mayorkas, Aug. 7, 2013.

[Hats way off to Sarah Castello and Bob Jobe!]