FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BI RONG LI, No. 12-35216
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00150-RSM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General;
JENNY ANNE DURKAN, U.S.Attorney
for the Western District of Washington;
RONALD C MACHEN, U.S. Attorney for
the District of Columbia,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 8, 2013**
Seattle, Washington
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Bi Rong Li petitioned for judicial review of an order upholding the denial of
her application for a U nonimmigrant visa. The district court granted the
defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding that Li’s failure to
submit a Form I-918, Supplement B certification with her visa application made
her ineligible for the visa. Li appeals, and we review de novo the district court’s
ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian
Fellowship v. Cnty. of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied,
133 S. Ct. 423 (2012). We affirm.
On review and on appeal, Li concedes that she did not file a Form I-918,
Supplement B certification. She argues, however, that the form should not have
been required because the Supplement B requirement is contrary to Congress’s
intent in enacting the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000
(“VTVPA”), under which the U nonimmigrant visa classification was established.
Specifically, she asserts that the “broad and liberal” wording of the VTVPA,
which, among other things, requires that the applicant must have “been helpful, is
being helpful, or is likely to be helpful to [law enforcement or local authorities]
investigating or prosecuting [qualifying] criminal activity,” 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(15)(U)(i)(III), makes the certification requirement contrary to the
VTVPA’s text and purpose. Alternatively, Li argues that even though she did not
2
submit the certification, she nonetheless complied with the statutory requirement
because simply by submitting her U visa application she was putting the
government on notice of qualifying criminal conduct and therefore was “being
helpful” to law enforcement in a future investigation.
Li’s arguments ignore the unambiguous text of 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(1), which
sets forth an additional requirement for U nonimmigrant visa applications. That
subsection states that the application “shall contain a certification from [law
enforcement or local authorities] investigating [the qualifying] criminal activity.”
Id. (emphasis added). In light of that text, which makes clear that some form of
certification is required, we reject Li’s argument that the Supplement B
requirement is contrary to Congress’s intent. See Perlman v. Catapult Entm’t, Inc.
(In re Catapult Entm’t, Inc.), 165 F.3d 747, 753-54 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Davis v.
Mich. Dep’t of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 808 n.3 (1989)) (noting that the Court need
not turn to other evidence of Congress’s intent when the statute’s text is
unambiguous). We likewise reject Li’s alternative argument, because it assumes
that no certification is required by law.
AFFIRMED.
3