Sunday Egahi v. Todd Blanche

── Sunday Egahi v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: April 13, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 23-1974 Doc: 89 Filed: 04/13/2026 Pg: 1 of 11 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1974 SUNDAY EGAHI, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General of the United States; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; DANIEL M. RENAUD, Director of the USCIS Vermont Service Center; SUSAN DIBBINS, Director, USCIS Administrative Appeals Office; JOSEPH B. EDLOW, Director, United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:21-cv-02938-LKG) Argued: January 28, 2026 Decided: April 13, 2026 Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Harris wrote the opinion, in which Judge Gregory and Judge Richardson joined. ARGUED: Simon Yehuda Sandoval-Moshenberg, MURRAY OSORIO PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Shane Alan Young, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Samuel P. Go, Assistant Director, Nicole P. Grant, Senior Litigation USCA4 Appeal: 23-1974 Doc: 89 Filed: 04/13/2026 Pg: 2 of 11 Counsel, Victor M. Mercado-Santana, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1974 Doc: 89 Filed: 04/13/2026 Pg: 3 of 11 PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Sunday Egahi sought immigration relief under the Violence Against Women Act but was deemed ineligible by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. He then sued the agency in federal district court, alleging that its decision was arbitrary and capricious. The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his claims and dismissed his complaint. On appeal, Egahi concedes that the district court was correct as to most of his claims. He contends, however, that the district court failed to consider a single claim that was not jurisdictionally barred: a legal challenge to the agency’s interpretation of the eligibility provision in question. But because Egahi failed to properly plead that claim in his complaint, and because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying him leave to amend, we affirm. I. In June 2017, Sunday Egahi filed a self-petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), seeking immigrant classification as the abused spouse of a United States citizen pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”). The agency denied Egahi’s petition two years later for failure to satisfy one of VAWA’s eligibility requirements: that he “resided with [his] spouse or intended spouse.” 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II)(dd). As USCIS explained in its decision, Egahi averred that he and his citizen spouse married in March 2012 and lived together from April 2012 to June 2014, first in Fort Worth, Texas, and then in Austin, Texas. But the evidence, USCIS determined,