Redeemed Christian Church v. CIS, No. 15-1661 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Administrative Procedures Act. The district court did not err in affirming the Citizenship and Immigration Services' decision regarding the classification of an individual as a special immigrant religious worker.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1661 ___________________________ Redeemed Christian Church of God Jesus House For All Nations lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant v. Citizenship and Immigration Services lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: December 21, 2015 Filed: December 28, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. The Redeemed Christian Church of God Jesus House for All Nations (RCCG) appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in its action under the 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Administrative Procedure Act seeking review of a decision by the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) relating to the classification of an individual as a special immigrant religious worker. Upon de novo review of the record and careful consideration of RCCG’s arguments for reversal, we agree with the district court that the record did not show that the decision at issue was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in compliance with the law, or that CIS’s factual findings were not supported by substantial evidence. See Kindred Hosps. E., LLC v. Sebelius, 694 F.3d 924, 927-28 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); see also Sugule v. Frazier, 639 F.3d 406, 411 (8th Cir. 2011) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard is narrow and reflects deference for agency’s expertise in its respective field). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
