USCA11 Case: 20-12811 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 1 of 11
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-12811
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:13-cv-01027-PGB-LRH
ANESH GUPTA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES
(USCIS),
U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS),
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, ORLANDO FIELD OFFICE, USCIS,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 16, 2021)
USCA11 Case: 20-12811 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 2 of 11
Before: WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Anesh Gupta, a pro se litigant, is a citizen of India who was previously granted
a ten-year multiple entry visa. Before the expiration of that visa, he alleged that he
had married a U.S. citizen. She had submitted a visa petition on Gupta’s behalf, after
which Gupta applied to adjust his immigration status. The U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Service denied both the visa petition and Gupta’s application on the
basis of marriage fraud. Upon denial of Gupta’s petition, the Department of
Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. Gupta then filed suit
in the district court and alleged that the government violated 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1),
8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(vii), the APA, his marital privacy rights, and his right to due
process under the Fifth Amendment in an attempt to change his immigration status.
The district court granted summary judgment for the government and denied Gupta’s
motion for relief from judgment, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3), and his accompanying
motions for an evidentiary hearing and for a stay under the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702.
On appeal, Gupta argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter
judgment against him because he was in the midst of removal proceedings and
because his putative wife was not joined to the district court proceedings. Gupta also
argues that he had proven that the government committed fraud on the court by
2
USCA11 Case: 20-12811 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 3 of 11
omitting material from the certified administrative record, that the court should have
held an evidentiary hearing to discover the full extent of the alleged fraud, and that
the court should have stayed its judgment. His arguments are meritless. We agree
with the district court and affirm.
I.
We presume familiarity with the factual and procedural history and describe
it below only to the extent necessary to address the issues raised in this appeal.
This appeal is the latest entry in Gupta’s lengthy immigration dispute. The
heart of the matter is that the government denied Gupta’s application for adjustment
of status and his putative wife’s visa petition on his behalf. Because Gupta
challenges the federal courts’ jurisdiction over this matter, we briefly list the relevant
dates in the parallel administrative and judicial proceedings as follows. In 2009, the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service denied the Form I-130 visa petition filed
on Gupta’s behalf. The basis for the government’s denial was marriage fraud and
that Gupta’s putative wife had not responded to their questions about their marriage
and so had abandoned her visa petition. The government then initiated removal
proceedings against Gupta. During those proceedings, Gupta and his putative wife
were interviewed, and the government reconsidered its denial of the visa petition.
After reconsidering the denial, the government again determined that their marriage
was not bona fide. On February 7, 2013, the government informed Gupta that it had
3
USCA11 Case: 20-12811 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 4 of 11
denied the visa petition and so his adjustment application was denied as well. On
July 5, 2013, Gupta initiated proceedings in district court, and the court entered
judgment against Gupta in 2015. Gupta filed the present Rule 60(d)(3) in 2020.
During the 2011 interview, Gupta stated that the pair were married only a few
days after first meeting, he never had a wedding ring, and he could not recall the last
time that they had kissed. The putative wife was not wearing a wedding ring during
the interview, and she stated that she could not recall the last time that she and Gupta
had had sex, that the pair had separate bank accounts, and that Gupta did not have a
key to her house. The evidence also showed that the putative wife had never told her
son that she was married, had never met any of Gupta’s friends, did not provide
many of the supporting documents that the government had requested, did not post
bond when Gupta was in custody, and had not kissed Gupta since 2003.
Gupta alleges that the real reason his application was denied is because the
United States and the Walt Disney World Company are conspiring to retaliate
against him for accusing Disney of violating immigration laws. We have previously
determined that Gupta “is a serial litigant.” Gupta v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 806 F. App’x
810, 812 (11th Cir. 2020); see also Gupta v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2017 WL 6075494, at
*1 n.1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2018) (noting that Gupta has filed twenty-one lawsuits
in the Orlando Division of the Middle District of Florida since 2005 and is
“dangerously close to being considered a vexatious litigant.”).
4
USCA11 Case: 20-12811 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 5 of 11
The subject of this appeal is Gupta’s complaint against various agencies and
officials of the United States, Orlando, and Chicago. The government filed a motion
to dismiss, accompanied by various portions of the administrative record. The court
ordered the government to submit the complete administrative record and certify that
it was complete. The government did so. But Gupta moved to hold the government
in contempt for omitting page six of a seven-page letter about his Disney allegations
that he sent to President Obama. That page was just Gupta’s signature, personal
information, and a list of people to whom he copied the letter. It was later determined
that one page of Gupta’s Form I-485 Processing Worksheet was also missing. That
page refers to what the district court described as Gupta’s potentially disqualifying
criminal history.
The district court found that the administrative record was complete and that,
although the page from the Obama letter and the page about Gupta’s criminal history
were inadvertently omitted, the government later supplemented the record provided
to the court. The court also found that the government denied relief because of
marriage fraud and because the putative wife had abandoned her petition—not
because of the Disney allegations or Gupta’s criminal history. The court granted
summary judgment in the government’s favor. About five years later, Gupta filed a
Rule 60(d)(3) motion for relief from judgment and accompanying motions for an
5
USCA11 Case: 20-12811 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 6 of 11
evidentiary hearing and a stay. The court denied those motions. This appeal
followed.
II. DISCUSSION
Gupta argues that the district court erred in determining that he had not
demonstrated fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence, and that even if
he had, he had not shown that the fact that pages were missing from the
administrative record adversely affected the challenged outcome: summary
judgment in favor of the government’s decision to deny Gupta’s adjustment of status
application and accompanying visa petition. Gupta also argues that the district court
lacked jurisdiction to affirm the administrative decisions on the I-130 petition and I-
485 application, even though he concedes that it had jurisdiction to determine his
adjustment of status. We conclude that the court did have jurisdiction and did not
abuse its discretion in denying Gupta’s Rule 60(d)(3) motion and motions for an
evidentiary hearing and stay.
A. Jurisdiction
Gupta argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the
government’s decision to deny the Form I-485 application because he was in
removal proceedings and the Form I-130 because his putative wife had filed that
document and so was an indispensable party who was not joined to the proceedings.
We review for subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco
6
USCA11 Case: 20-12811 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 7 of 11
Co., 168 F.3d 405, 408 (11th Cir. 1999). We review a decision regarding the joinder
of indispensable parties for abuse of discretion. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v.
Dolgencorp, LLC, 746 F.3d 1008, 1039 (11th Cir. 2014).
The district courts have jurisdiction to review “final agency action[s].” 5
U.S.C. §§ 702, 704. To be a final reviewable decision, “[f]irst, the action must mark
the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process—it must not be of a
merely tentative or interlocutory nature. And second, the action must be one by
which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences
will flow.” Canal A Media Holding, LLC v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 964
F.3d 1250, 1255 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes
Co., 578 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1807, 1813 (2016)).
A U.S. citizen can petition for a visa for her spouse by submitting Form I-130
to the Citizenship and Immigration Service. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a). The spouse then
files a Form I-485 to adjust his immigration status. 8 C.F.R. § 245.2. If the
government denies the spouse’s application for adjustment of status, the spouse may
renew his application during removal proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5)(ii) (“[T]he
applicant, if not an arriving alien, retains the right to renew his or her application in
proceedings under” removal proceedings.). But if the government instead denies the
visa petition, then the government has issued a final decision because the
immigration judge has no authority to alter it. Canal A Media Holding, LLC v. U.S.
7
USCA11 Case: 20-12811 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 8 of 11
Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 964 F.3d 1250, 1255–56 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting In
re Aurelio, 19 I. & N. Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (“[I]t is well established that
immigration judges have no jurisdiction to decide visa petitions . . . .”)).
A party is “indispensable” and must be joined if, “in that person’s absence,
the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties” or “that person
claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing
of the action in the person’s absence” may harm their ability to protect the interest.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1).
Here, the district court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction. Gupta brought
a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, which is a federal statute. See 28
U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
arising under the . . . laws . . . of the United States.”). Although Gupta was in the
middle of removal proceedings—and so had not yet exhausted his administrative
remedies—while his complaint was pending, he later received a final reviewable
decision when the immigration judge ordered the government to reconsider its denial
of the visa petition and adjustment application. At that point, the agency issued a
new, final decision that the court could review. Nor was Gupta’s putative wife an
indispensable party. She filed a Form I-130 petition for Gupta’s benefit and the
district court could grant him complete relief without her presence. And
significantly, Gupta himself reported to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
8
USCA11 Case: 20-12811 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 9 of 11
Service that his putative wife no longer wished to pursue the I-130 petition, so he
wanted to proceed without her. Not only that, but on each of the three occasions
when Citizenship and Immigration advised Gupta’s putative wife that it believed the
marriage to be fraudulent and gave the putative wife time to respond in writing to
demonstrate that the marriage was bona fide, the putative wife never responded. We
conclude that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this action and
did not abuse its discretion in refusing to join the putative spouse.
B. Motion for Relief from Judgment
Gupta argues that the district court erred in denying his Rule 60(d)(3) motion
for relief from judgment after it determined that he had not demonstrated fraud on
the court. We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(d)(3) motion for abuse of
discretion. See Cox Nuclear Pharm., Inc. v. CTI, Inc., 478 F.3d 1303, 1314 (11th
Cir. 2007). We also review a district court’s decision whether to hold an evidentiary
hearing for abuse of discretion. Cliff v. Payco Gen. Am. Credits, Inc., 363 F.3d 1113,
1121 (11th Cir. 2004). “A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect
legal standard, applies the law in an unreasonable or incorrect manner, follows
improper procedures in making a determination, or makes findings of fact that are
clearly erroneous.” Giovanno v. Fabec, 804 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1244 (11th Cir. 2015)).
A district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a request for an evidentiary
9
USCA11 Case: 20-12811 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 10 of 11
hearing for a Rule 60(b) motion when the hearing would not aid the court’s analysis.
Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342-43 (11th Cir. 2006).
Under Rule 60(d)(3), a court may set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). A movant seeking relief under that rule must establish that
“an adverse party has obtained the verdict through fraud” by clear and convincing
evidence. Cox Nuclear, 478 F.3d at 1314 (quoting Frederick v. Kirby Tankships,
Inc., 205 F.3d 1277, 1287 (11th Cir. 2000)). The movant must also show that the
opposing party’s fraud prevented him from fully presenting his case. Id. Only
egregious misconduct—an unconscionable scheme to influence the court’s decision,
for example—will constitute a fraud on the court. Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573
F.2d 1332, 1338 (5th Cir. 1978). Mere perjury or nondisclosure of relevant facts
does not generally constitute fraud on the court because it can be exposed by the
normal adversary process. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Gore, 761 F.2d 1549, 1551–
52 (11th Cir. 1985)) (“Fraud on the court is therefore limited to the more egregious
forms of subversion of the legal process,” unlike perjury or fabricated evidence, i.e.,
“those we cannot necessarily expect to be exposed to by the normal adversary
process.”).
Here, Gupta failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the
government defrauded the district court. The omission of two pages from the
administrative record did not impact the district court’s decision to grant summary
10
USCA11 Case: 20-12811 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 11 of 11
judgment in favor of the government. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Gupta’s Rule 60(d)(3) motion and accompanying motions
for an evidentiary hearing and a stay. Gupta’s allegation that the government omitted
two pages from the administrative record—an allegation unrelated to whether his
marriage was fraudulent—amounts to no more than nondisclosure of facts. As a
matter of law, such allegations cannot be fraud on the court. See Travelers Indem.
Co., 761 F.2d at 1551–52; Rozier, 573 F.2d at 1338. Even if the facts had been
relevant to his marriage, Gupta could have discovered the facts through the
adversarial process.
Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Gupta’s motions for
an evidentiary hearing or for a stay. The court had already addressed the
completeness of the administrative record on several occasions and the allegedly
missing documents were unrelated to the order that was the subject of Gupta’s Rule
60(d)(3) motion. And once the court denied the Rule 60(d)(3) motion, any request
for a stay became moot.
AFFIRMED.
11