Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01661/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01661-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Appellee
Redeemed Christian Church of God Jesus House For All Nations
Appellant

Document Text:

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[Unpublished]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’s adverse grant ofsummary judgment in its action under the

1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States DistrictJudge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 15-1661 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2015 Entry ID: 4349848 
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 argumentsfor 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-

Appellate Case: 15-1661 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2015 Entry ID: 4349848