Fu v. Department of Homeland Security and others

Background

Sun Fu challenged USCIS’s denial of her Form I-539 application to extend her H-4 nonimmigrant status. The H-4 status was based on her marriage to an H-1B nonimmigrant visa holder. USCIS denied the application after finding that Sun Fu had willfully misrepresented a material fact about her employment with Findream LLC while participating in the Optional Practical Training program.

Sun Fu entered the United States in 2013. In 2015, USCIS approved her application for F-1 Optional Practical Training employment authorization. She began working for Findream in April 2016, but Findream did not provide her work assignments. She began looking for other employment in June 2016 and started working for Fortinet in September 2016. Her new Form I-20 listed her earlier Findream employment.

In 2019, Findream and its owner, Kelly Huang, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit visa fraud by providing false documents for F-1 students. Sun Fu learned about that prosecution in 2020. After marrying an H-1B visa holder in November 2021, she applied for an H-4 visa. The United States Consulate in Canada questioned her twice about Findream, issued her an H-4 visa, and Customs and Border Protection officials later questioned her at the United States border and found her admissible.

In January 2023, Sun Fu applied to extend her H-4 status. In May 2024, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny, stating that she was inadmissible because of a willful misrepresentation on her 2016 employment-authorization application. Sun Fu responded with additional evidence. In November 2024, USCIS denied the I-539 application based on the alleged misrepresentation.

The parties’ arguments

Sun Fu moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in her favor without a trial. She argued that the court had authority to review USCIS’s inadmissibility determination because it involved a mixed question of law and fact. She also argued that USCIS acted arbitrarily and capriciously because it knew about her Findream affiliation before the I-539 application and because it departed from earlier admissibility findings by the State Department and Customs and Border Protection.

The defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. They argued that USCIS’s initial inadmissibility determination was preliminary rather than a separate final agency action and that the court could not review it.

Court’s analysis

The court first addressed subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning its legal authority to hear the dispute. The court explained that the Administrative Procedure Act generally does not permit review when a statute precludes judicial review or when an agency decision is committed to agency discretion by law. It also relied on the regulation governing extensions or changes of nonimmigrant status, which states that USCIS “may” grant an extension or amendment “in its discretion.”

The court concluded that this language clearly gave USCIS discretion. Because the I-539 denial was discretionary, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial. The court also held that it could not separately review USCIS’s finding of willful misrepresentation because that finding was an underlying eligibility determination supporting the ultimate discretionary decision.

The court separately considered Sun Fu’s Administrative Procedure Act arguments in the alternative. It stated that, if it had jurisdiction, it could set aside a final agency decision that was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful. But the court found that USCIS had discussed the evidence in the Notice of Intent to Deny, allowed Sun Fu to respond and submit additional evidence, considered that evidence, weighed discretionary factors, and explained why she did not merit a favorable exercise of discretion. The court concluded that USCIS had articulated a rational connection between the facts it found and its decision, and that Sun Fu had not presented evidence requiring a different conclusion.

Disposition

The court denied Sun Fu’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed or specify a separate judgment beyond those rulings.