17-2984 Kumar v. U.S. Citizenship & Immig. Servs. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st of August, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges, EDWARD R. KORMAN, Judge. ∗ RASHPAL KUMAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, 17-2984 v. DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, USCIS, Defendant-Appellee. ∗Judge Edward R. Korman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: MICHAEL E. PISTON, Piston & Carpenter P.C., New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: MATTHEW SILVERMAN (Varuni Nelson, on the brief) Assistant United States Attorneys, for Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Carol Bagley Amon, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant Rashpal Kumar (“Kumar”) appeals from a judgment of the District Court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on Kumar’s claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Kumar seeks review of USCIS’s June 2014 decision to revoke its approval of the Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130” petition) that Kumar filed on behalf of his brother, Paramjit Singh, a citizen of India, for a visa to the United States. The USCIS automatically revoked its approval after Kumar submitted a letter withdrawing his petition to the U.S. embassy in New Delhi, which the Department of State forwarded to the USCIS. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. In reviewing an appeal from a grant of summary judgment involving an APA claim, “we review the administrative record de novo without according deference to the decision of the district court.” Karpova v. Snow, 497 F.3d 262, 267 (2d Cir. 2007). We must “hold unlawful and set aside any agency action found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” but “the scope of review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard is narrow and courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the agency.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, “so long as the agency examines the relevant ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals