UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1496 ANGELICA ROCHA HERRERA, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JOHN L. FINAN, Chair of the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education, in his individual and official capacity; BETTIE ROSE HORNE, in her individual and official capacity; HOOD TEMPLE, in his individual and official capacity; TERRYE C. SECKINGER, in her individual and official capacity; NATASHA M. HANNA, in her individual and official capacity; ELIZABETH JACKSON, in her individual and official capacity; LEAH B. MOODY, in her individual and official capacity; CHARLES MUNNS, in his individual and official capacity; KIM F. PHILLIPS, in his individual and official capacity; JENNIFER B. SETTLEMYER, in her individual and official capacity; DIANNE C. KUHL, in her individual and official capacity, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (7:14-cv-02255-BHH) Argued: September 13, 2017 Decided: October 4, 2017 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Burth Gilbert Lopez, MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Thomas A. Saenz, MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, Los Angeles, California, for Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: After two South Carolina public universities classified Angelica Rocha Herrera as an out-of-state resident for purposes of establishing her college tuition rate, she brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina against the Commissioners of the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education (the “Commissioners”). She alleges that the Commissioners’ administration and enforcement of the state’s rules for establishing in-state residency violated her equal protection and substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Specifically, Rocha asserts that the rebuttable presumption under South Carolina law that the residency of dependent students mirrors their parents’ residency is unconstitutional. The district court granted the Commissioners’ motion for summary judgment, which we affirm for the reasons that follow. I. A. Tuition at public colleges and universities in South Carolina is contingent on a student’s residency. Out-of-state students typically pay a significantly higher rate than do in-state residents. In the determination of residency, students bear the burden of establishing eligibility for in-state tuition rates. S.C. Code Ann. § 59-112-80; see also S.C. Code Ann. Regs. § 62-600(B); S.C. Code Ann. Regs. § 62-605(B). The same residency rules determine whether a student is eligible for certain scholarships—such as the state’s Legislative Incentive for Future Excellence (“LIFE”) scholarship—awarded 3 exclusively to in-state residents. See S.C. Code Ann. § 59-149-20(A)–(B) (“To be eligible for a LIFE scholarship, a student must be considered a resident of this State as provided in this chapter,” including that the student “is classified as a resident of South Carolina for in-state tuition purposes . . . at the time of enrollment[.]”). A factor governing the residency determination ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals