Vansy Chao v. Jefferson Sessions III


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00206-AJT-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000171820].. [17-1173]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1173 Doc: 26 Filed: 10/12/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1173 VANSY CHAO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Department of Justice; MICHAEL JOHN CREPPY, Board Member, Board of Immigration Appeals; ELAINE C. DUKE, Acting Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security; LEON RODRIGUEZ, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; KIMBERLY ZANOTTI, Field Director, USCIS, Washington, D.C. Field Office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00206-AJT-TCB) Submitted: September 29, 2017 Decided: October 12, 2017 Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald L. Schlemmer, DONALD SCHLEMMER LAW OFFICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Dennis C. Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Appeal: 17-1173 Doc: 26 Filed: 10/12/2017 Pg: 2 of 4 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 17-1173 Doc: 26 Filed: 10/12/2017 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: Vansy Chao appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants summary judgment and dismissing Chao’s civil action, which was filed pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). See 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (2012). We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, employing the same standard used by the district court. Roland v. USCIS, 850 F.3d 625, 628 (4th Cir. 2017). Pursuant to the APA, a “reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be [] arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). On appeal, this court is limited to examining “whether the agency conformed with controlling statutes, and whether the agency has committed a clear error of judgment.” Holly Hill Farm Corp. v. United States, 447 F.3d 258, 263 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Id. (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). We have considered Chao’s arguments on appeal in conjunction with the record and relevant authorities. We agree with the district court that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ denial of Chao’s I-130 Petition for an Alien Relative benefiting his wife, which was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, is not arbitrary, capricious, contrary to established law, or otherwise an abuse of discretion, and that the dispositive factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. § 706(2)(A), (E). 3 See 5 U.S.C. Appeal: 17-1173 Doc: 26 Filed: 10/12/2017 Pg: 4 of 4 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its dispositive order. See Chao v. Sessions, No. 1:16-cv-00206-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?