Singh v. BIA

17-883-cv Singh v. BIA 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 TO 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 26th day of February, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., PETER W. HALL, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ SUKHWINDER SINGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 17-883-cv BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________________ For Plaintiff-Appellant: MICHAEL E. PISTON, New York, NY. For Defendants-Appellees: BRANDON M. WATERMAN, Assistant United States Attorney, (Christopher Connolly, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellant Sukhwinder Singh appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Government in her challenge to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (“USCIS”) denial of the Petition for Alien Relative that she filed on behalf of her husband Balbir Singh. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case. “On appeal from a grant of summary judgment involving a claim brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, 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). A court must hold unlawful and set aside agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). “The scope of review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). Moreover, despite the de novo standard of review, we must afford “[a]ppropriate deference” to the agency’s decisions “in light of the widespread fraud associated with immediate-relative petitions.” Egan v. Weiss, 119 F.3d 106, 107 (2d Cir. 1997). 2 The agency may not approve any visa petition for a beneficiary who previously sought status through “a marriage determined by the Attorney General to have been entered into ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals