18-896 Zhang v. Barr 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 12th day of March, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ Ru Jun Zhang, Yanli Chen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 18-896 William P. Barr, United States Attorney General, Thomas M. Cioppa, District Director for the New York United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants-Appellees.* _____________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: Gary J. Yerman, Esq., New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Varuni Nelson, Joseph A. Marutollo, Assistant United States Attorneys, Of Counsel, for Richard P. Donoghue, United * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as shown above. States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Kuntz, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court entered on March 5, 2018, is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs-Appellants Ru Jun Zhang and Yanli Chen appeal the district court’s judgment affirming a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and denying their claim that the agency’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The BIA affirmed a decision of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denying the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative that Zhang, a U.S. citizen, filed in 2007, seeking to have the agency classify Chen, a non- citizen, as his spouse preliminary to her application for lawful permanent residency. See 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(i). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal, to which we refer only as needed to explain our decision to affirm. We will overturn the BIA’s denial of a classification petition only if the agency’s decision is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); see also Egan v. Weiss, 119 F.3d 106, 107 (2d Cir. 1997). We accord “[a]ppropriate deference” to the BIA’s classification decisions “in light of the widespread fraud associated with immediate-relative petitions.” Egan 119 F.3d at 107. “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.” ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals