Marleny Casas v. USCIS District Director Miami

Case: 12-15165 Date Filed: 05/01/2013 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 12-15165
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-21083-RSR

MARLENY CASAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

USCIS DISTRICT DIRECTOR MIAMI,
SECRETARY, US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
US ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________

(May 1, 2013)

Before HULL, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
 Case: 12-15165 Date Filed: 05/01/2013 Page: 2 of 3

Marleny Casas, a native and citizen of Cuba, appeals the summary judgment

in favor of the District Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,

the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General

of the United States. After the entry of a final order of removal against her, Casas

complained that the denial of her second application for an adjustment of status

under the Cuban Adjustment Act, Pub. L. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161 (1966), violated

the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, and she sought relief under the

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the Mandamus Act, id. § 1361.

Casas argues that a genuine factual dispute exists about whether she presented a

fraudulent passport to an immigration inspector and that dispute barred summary

judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm.

The district court did not err. Casas misunderstands the standard of review

of an agency action. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the “task of the

reviewing court is to apply the appropriate APA standard of review . . . to the

agency decision based on the record [provided by] the agency.” Florida Power &

Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743–44, 105 S. Ct. 1598, 1607 (1985). The

administrative record establishes, as the district court concluded, that the agency

based its decision to deny Casas’s application for adjustment of status on

substantial evidence that she submitted a fraudulent passport to immigration

officials. The question before the district court was whether that decision of the

2
 Case: 12-15165 Date Filed: 05/01/2013 Page: 3 of 3

agency was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Casas cannot relitigate

de novo the underlying factual dispute that the agency resolved.

We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

3