Hanan v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

── Hanan v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OFIR HANAN; MELANIE No. 24-6193 GILLUM, D.C. No. 4:23-cv-02414- Plaintiffs - Appellants, HSG v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP OPINION AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; JOSEPH B. EDLOW, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; RICHARD VALEIKA, San Francisco Field Office Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General; BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding 2 HANAN V. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES Argued and Submitted February 10, 2026 San Francisco, California Filed April 27, 2026 Before: N. Randy Smith, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Nguyen SUMMARY* Immigration The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the government in an action in which Ofir Hanan, a citizen of Israel, and Melanie Gillum, his U.S. citizen wife, challenged the denial by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) of Gillum’s petition for Hanan to be classified as an immediate relative. Hanan, who had entered the United States on a tourist visa and overstayed, married Gillum in 2014. Based on the marriage, Gillum petitioned for Hanan’s immediate relative classification by filing an I-130 petition, which is a precursor to permanent residence. USCIS concluded that Hanan’s prior marriage to a different U.S. citizen was a sham, entered into for the sole purpose of obtaining benefits. USCIS thus denied Gillum’s I-130 petition under the marriage fraud bar, * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  HANAN V. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES 3 which precludes approval of an I-130 petition if the alien had previously “attempted . . . to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.” 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c)(2). After the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Gillum’s appeal of the denial of the petition, Gillum and Hanan (together, “plaintiffs”) sought review of the agency’s decision in the district court, claiming violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and procedural due process. Plaintiffs contended that the marriage fraud bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) did not apply to Hanan’s first marriage because no one sought any immigration benefit for him based on that marriage. The panel held, based on the statute’s plain meaning, that the marriage fraud bar does not require that the noncitizen apply for an immigration benefit. Rather, under the statute’s unambiguous meaning, if a noncitizen attempts or conspires “to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws,” then the marriage fraud bar applies. Whether the noncitizen takes any further actions, such as marrying and filing for immigration benefits, is immaterial. Plaintiffs alternatively contended that USCIS violated their procedural due process rights by relying on Hanan’s ex- wife’s statement without making her available for cross- examination. To determine whether the procedures provided to protect a liberty or property interest were constitutionally sufficient, the panel balanced the three factors set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976): 1) the private interest affected by the official action; 2) the risk of an erroneo