Opinion
No. 10-16388 D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00688-RCJ-VPC
09-25-2012
CHRISTINE MARY NOVICIO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Defendant - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 12, 2012
Las Vegas, Nevada
Before: RAWLINSON, BYBEE, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Christine Novicio appeals the district court's dismissal of her challenge to the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c), which prohibits an alien spouse from becoming a lawful United States resident if the alien spouse had been involved in marriage fraud. We affirm.
Novicio had standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 1154(c) because the provision prevents Novicio from residing with her husband in the United States, an "injury in fact" that would be redressed by a decision invalidating § 1154(c) as unconstitutional. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)).
Even if § 1154(c) burdens Novicio's constitutional right to marry, because it imposes no particular procedure for determining whether an alien spouse is eligible for legal resident status, it is not a procedural statute that must be analyzed under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). As a substantive provision, § 1154(c) is subject to limited judicial review under the deferential standard articulated in Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977). The enactment of § 1154(c) is justified by the "facially legitimate and bona fide reason" of deterring marriage fraud by aliens. Id. at 794-95. Therefore, we hold that § 1154(c) is not unconstitutional even if it burdens Novicio's constitutional right to marry by preventing her from living with her alien spouse in the United States.
AFFIRMED.