17-923-cv Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. 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 ASUMMARY 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 19th day of October, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- YING LIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 17-923-cv UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, JOHN F. KELLY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DIRECTOR USCIS LEON RODRIGUEZ, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR, DISTRICT DIRECTOR PHYLLIS COVEN, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE, Defendants-Appellees. -------------------------------------------------------------------- APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: EDWARD J. CUCCIA, Cuccia & Campise, PLLC, New York, New York. 1 APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: ELLIOT M. SCHACHNER, Assistant United States Attorney (Varuni Nelson, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Bridget M. Rohde, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Pamela K. Chen, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on March 1, 2017, is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff Ying Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, sues under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., and Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2201, for review of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’s (“USCIS’s”) denial of her application to adjust her status to lawful permanent resident. She here appeals from the dismissal of her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). On such an appeal, “we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.” Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721, 727 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). While we must “accept[] all material facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw[] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor,” we do so mindful that “[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, “[i]t is well settled that this Court may affirm on any basis for which there is sufficient support in the record, including grounds not relied on by the district court.” Lotes Co. v. Hon Hai ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals