Appeals Court Reopens Suit Over Revocation of Visas in Phony University Sting Operation
The ruling reinstates a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of students whose visas were revoked because they claimed to be enrolled in a nonexistent university.
August 15, 2019 at 04:03 PM
5 minute read
A federal appeals court has reversed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of individuals caught up in a sting operation that used a phony university called the University of Northern New Jersey.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed a U.S. District Court ruling dismissing a class action suit filed on behalf of students whose visas were revoked because they claimed to be enrolled in the nonexistent university. The appeals court rejected the trial judge’s findings that the case was not ripe for review and that there had been no final decision by the government.
The suit is brought on behalf of individuals whose student visas were revoked based on claims of enrollment in the nonexistent university.
The phony school was created by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2013 as a means to catch brokers of fraudulent student visas. It had a website and a social media presence and was led by a fictitious president named Steven Brunetti, who had his own LinkedIn page. Operating from rented office space in Cranford, the school had a Latin motto, “Humanus, Scientia, Integritas.” It sent out notices that classes were cancelled when weather was inclement, but there were no classes.
Federal officials announced the arrests of 21 people in 2016 who allegedly brokered visas for international students to attend UNNJ. The students were told their visas were terminated due to their fraudulent enrollment. The plaintiffs, five students, filed a class action claiming violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and violation of their due process rights and said the government should be estopped from revoking their visas.
But the government changed its story on whether the students who paid the brokers for visas were culpable, the appeals court said. The government indicated at oral argument before the Third Circuit in September 2018 that the plaintiffs did not commit fraud by enrolling in UNNJ, but rather were victims of fraud. But In October 2018 it submitted a letter to the court stating that it did not consider the plaintiffs innocent victims. Rather, the government asserted, all or most UNNJ enrollees knew that their academic recruiters committed visa fraud and some had conspired with the recruiters.
The suit names as defendants the director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Former Chief U.S. District Judge Jose Linares of the District of New Jersey dismissed the suit in October 2017. He said the plaintiffs failed to allege a final agency action because their applications for reinstatement were still pending. Linares also said the case was not ripe for judicial review because plaintiffs sought the same determination—whether their enrollments were fraudulent—that they requested in their pending applications.
Judges Theodore McKee, L. Felipe Restrepo and Julio Fuentes ruled that reinstatement proceedings are not required by statute or regulation and do not afford the students an opportunity for review of the termination of their visas. Therefore, reinstatement proceedings are not a prerequisite to finality for the purposes of subject matter jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedures Act. In addition, the appeals court judges rejected the government’s position that the case was not ripe for review. McKee, writing for the court, noted that the parties are sufficiently adversarial, since the students have had their lawful status terminated and a notation of fraud placed on their records. The government’s shifting position on whether the students are victims of fraud or themselves participants in the fraud could give the court pause, McKee wrote. But it would be a “cruel irony” if the government’s “flip flop” on that issue to deprive the appeals court of the ability to review the government’s action, McKee said.
“Rather than allow the government’s change in position to inure to the government’s own benefit, we believe the flip-flop underscores the need for judicial review of a decision that would otherwise escape review by any court or agency,” the appeals court said.
Three of the named plaintiffs—Shaofu Li, Hirenkumar Patel and Kaushalkumar Patel—had their applications for reinstatement of their visas denied by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services based on their enrollment at UNNJ. An application for reinstatement by another plaintiff, Xiaoyu Zhang, is pending, and a fifth plaintiff, Shaofu Li, left the country voluntarily and has not yet applied for reinstatement.
Ira Kurzban of Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt in Coral Gables, Florida. represented the plaintiffs at the Third Circuit. He said the court’s definition of what constitutes a final agency action would have broad impact on immigration cases of all types. Kurzban added the decision is also important because the court clearly takes a dim view of such “entrapment” actions that are combined with the view that all persons involved were committing fraud, as it did here. He noted the Northern New Jersey University action was followed by the government’s creation of another fictitious school, the University of Farmington in Michigan, for similar purposes.
“ICE wanted to entrap agents who they thought were acting improperly. In the process, they went way overboard and accused the students of committing fraud without ever investigating what the students knew,” Kurzban said.
The government was represented by Daniel Meyler of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark and Joshua Press of the Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation in Washington. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Matthew Reilly, declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'You Became a Corrupt Politician': Judge Gives Prison Time to Former Sen. Robert Menendez for Corruption Conviction
5 minute readFederal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Plan Suit
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Thursday Newspaper
- 2Public Notices/Calendars
- 3Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-117
- 4Rejuvenation of a Sharp Employer Non-Compete Tool: Delaware Supreme Court Reinvigorates the Employee Choice Doctrine
- 5Mastering Litigation in New York’s Commercial Division Part V, Leave It to the Experts: Expert Discovery in the New York Commercial Division
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250