NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 18-1821 XU FENG, Appellant v. UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE ________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civil Action No. 1-16-cv-00664) District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno Argued March 6, 2019 Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 28, 2019) Jason J. Bach The Bach Law Firm, LLC 7881 West Charleston Blvd, Suite 165 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Stephanie Denzel (Argued) 253 Montelo Road Memphis TN 38120 Counsel for Appellant Selena E. Molina James D. Taylor, Jr. (Argued) Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr 1201 North Market Street, Suite 2300 Wilmington, DE 19801 Counsel for Appellee ________________ OPINION * AMBRO, Circuit Judge Xu Feng is a Chinese national who came to the United States in 2013 for post- graduate studies following undergraduate education in his native country. After attending a prep class at the University of California – Irvine, Feng enrolled in a master’s program in social studies and world history at the University of Delaware beginning in the summer of 2014. The program was designed for aspiring high school teachers who were actively working and thus could only participate part-time. It required students to take two courses during the summer session and one course each in the fall and the spring. At first Feng did well in the program, but at the start of the 2014 fall semester the University informed him that, in order to maintain his “full-time” student standing and thereby maintain his immigration status, he had to enroll in three courses instead of one. Feng’s performance plummeted, and he was eventually expelled from the program under the University’s academic standing policies. He then brought this action against the * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 University, alleging national origin discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., as well as state-law claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The District Court granted summary judgment to the University, reasoning as to the federal discrimination claim that Feng had failed to provide valid comparator evidence. Undoubtedly Feng’s case would have been stronger with that evidence. But a discrimination plaintiff like Feng is not required to use that method, or any particular method, to prove his case. Thus we vacate the grant of summary judgment as to the Title VI claim, but affirm summary judgment on the state-law claims for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court. Title VI provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. 1 Cases under Title VI are governed by the same framework as those under other federal civil rights laws ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals