MEMORANDUM **

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, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (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, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (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, 97 S.Ct. 1473, 52 L.Ed.2d 50 (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, 97 S.Ct. 1473. 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.