Whether the USCIS misinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) in denying a spousal visa petition based on alleged marriage fraud

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1)Whether the USCIS misinterpretation of 8 USC. § 1154(c) is the permissible interpretation of the statute. ; 2)Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) required that a petition be denied if there’s a substantial evidence that my former wife was coerced under threat of criminal exposure to lie under oath, that we conspired to enter into marriage for the ; purpose of evading immigration laws, but was contradicted by the marital evidence we had submitted. 3)Whether the federal courts erred to apply de novo review on a complaint for _ judicial review of a final agency action. 4)Whether the federal courts erred to apply the plausibility standard on complaint Oe for judicial review of a final agency action. . 7 5)Whether an admission of marriage fraud made in conjunction with the — withdrawal of an earlier I-130 petition can be used as a dispositive evidence for a sham marriage. 6)Whether discrepancies in a spousal visa interview can be used as a dispositive evidence for an evidence marriage of fraud. ~ 7)Whether a claim that a government official ignored or disregarded important evidence, or applied an incorrect legal conclusion to issue its denial is a plausible claim. 8)Whether a claim that a government official misstated or misrepresented important evidence constitutes a due process violation. , 9)Whether a claim that a government official informed me that “the reason why you all come to the United States, but don’t want to return to where you came from is because we have everything. After this interview, you will be denied and sent to the immigration court for removal proceeding” constitutes an equal . protection violation. ; 10)Whether a claim that my former wife was coerced to withdraw her 1-130 petition filed on my behalf and to testify and admit that we entered into fraudulent marriage, because a USCIS official threatened to inform the Department of Transitional assistance “DTA” about her marital status which will impact her eligibility for food stamps, Massachusetts health insurance, monthly cash benefits and other welfare benefits constitutes an equal protection violation. II. RELATED CASES Okoliv. Tucker, 22-cv-10316, U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. Judgement entered Feb. 10, 2023. Okoli v. Tucker, 23-1150, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Oo Judgement entered Jul. 9, 2024. Tl.