Title: Ravindranathan v. Virginia Commonwealth Univ.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 982473
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: September 17, 1999

Present:  All the Justices 
 
MEERA RAVINDRANATHAN 
 
 
            OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. 
v.  Record No. 982473 
September 17, 1999 
 
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 
Theodore J. Markow, Judge 
 
 
In this appeal, we consider whether the circuit court 
erred in approving a university's decision to deny a student's 
request for in-state tuition charges. 
 
Meera P. Ravindranathan, then a first-year medical 
student at the Medical College of Virginia of Virginia 
Commonwealth University ("VCU"), filed a request for in-state 
tuition benefits.  She stated, in her "Application For Change 
of Domicile for Virginia In-State Tuition Rates," that her 
specific reason for changing her domicile from Illinois to 
Virginia was because her "boyfriend" resided in Virginia.  She 
stated that her present intention was to remain in Virginia 
indefinitely because she "like[d] living in Virginia.  My 
boyfriend will be settling in Northern Virginia so I also plan 
to stay in Virginia." 
 
Ravindranathan also included the following relevant facts 
in her application.  She is registered to vote in Virginia.  
She possesses a valid Virginia driver's license.  She owns a 
car that is registered in Virginia.  She has checking and 
savings accounts with financial institutions in Virginia.  She 
filed a Virginia state resident income tax return the year 
preceding the date of her application, and she did not file 
any state income tax returns in any other state during the 
period covering three years from the date of her application. 
 
Brenda H. Jones, a residency officer at VCU, denied 
Ravindranathan's application.  Jones concluded that 
Ravindranathan's primary reason for having moved from her 
parents' home in Illinois to Virginia was to attend VCU.  
 
Ravindranathan appealed the residency officer's decision 
to VCU's Residency Appeals Committee.  Ravindranathan appeared 
before the Committee and reasserted the facts that were 
contained in her application.  The following additional facts 
were established during that hearing. 
 
Ravindranathan entered VCU as a freshman in August 1993.  
At that time, she was a resident of Illinois.  She was 
admitted in a program which guaranteed her admission to VCU's 
medical school upon completion of her undergraduate studies.  
Ravindranathan completed the requirements for her 
undergraduate degree a semester early, and she worked as a 
full-time employee with a bank from February 1996 until June 
1996. 
Ravindranathan stated that she decided to make the 
Commonwealth of Virginia her permanent residence before she 
 
2
began her first year of medical school.  Her father, a 
physician in Illinois, has obtained a license to practice 
medicine in Virginia, and her parents intend to move to 
Virginia upon his retirement from his medical practice in 
Illinois.  Ravindranathan testified that her father "cosigned 
for a loan," and she used the proceeds to purchase a 
condominium in Richmond. 
 
The Residency Appeals Committee denied Ravindranathan's 
request for in-state tuition benefits.  The Committee stated, 
in a letter to Ravindranathan: 
"Based on your application, oral presentation and 
documentation submitted, it was the judgment of the 
Committee that there was not clear and convincing 
evidence of your intent to make Virginia your 
domicile.  The Committee denied your request for in-
state tuition rates. 
 
 . . .  
 
"The Committee's interpretation of the information 
presented is that you came to Virginia for 
educational purposes and that those purposes are 
your primary reason for remaining in Virginia at 
this time.  It was the opinion of the Committee that 
your actions to date do not provide sufficient 
documentation to rebut successfully the presumption 
that you came to Virginia for educational purposes." 
 
 
Ravindranathan filed a "Petition for Recognition of 
Virginia Domicile" in the circuit court.  She alleged that the 
Committee's decision was arbitrary and capricious.  VCU 
responded to the petition, the circuit court reviewed the 
record, and considered argument of counsel.  The circuit court 
 
3
held that the Committee's decision was not arbitrary and, 
therefore, entered a judgment in favor of VCU.  Ravindranathan 
appeals. 
 
Code § 23-7.4(B), which governs eligibility for in-state 
tuition charges at state-supported colleges and universities, 
states in relevant part: 
 
"To become eligible for in-state tuition, an 
independent student shall establish by clear and 
convincing evidence that for a period of at least 
one year immediately prior to the date of the 
alleged entitlement, he was domiciled in Virginia 
and had abandoned any previous domicile, if such 
existed. 
 
. . . . 
 
 
"In determining domiciliary intent, all of the 
following applicable factors shall be considered:  
continuous residence for at least one year prior to 
the date of alleged entitlement, state to which 
income taxes are filed or paid, driver's license, 
motor vehicle registration, voter registration, 
employment, property ownership, sources of financial 
support, military records, a written offer and 
acceptance of employment following graduation, and 
any other social or economic relationships with the 
Commonwealth and other jurisdictions. 
 
"Domiciliary status shall not ordinarily be 
conferred by the performance of acts which are 
auxiliary to fulfilling educational objectives or 
are required or routinely performed by temporary 
residents of the Commonwealth.  Mere physical 
presence or residence primarily for educational 
purposes shall not confer domiciliary status.  A 
matriculating student who has entered an institution 
and is classified as an out-of-state student shall 
be required to rebut by clear and convincing 
evidence the presumption that he is in the 
Commonwealth for the purpose of attending school and 
not as a bona fide domiciliary." 
 
 
4
 
Code § 23-7.4:3(A), which is also pertinent to our 
resolution of this appeal, states in relevant part: 
 
"Any party aggrieved by a final administrative 
decision shall have the right to review in the 
circuit court for the jurisdiction in which the 
relevant institution is located.  A petition for 
review of the final administrative decision shall be 
filed within thirty days of receiving the written 
decision.  In any such action, the institution shall 
forward the record to the court, whose function 
shall be only to determine whether the decision 
reached by the institution could reasonably be said, 
on the basis of the record, not to be arbitrary, 
capricious or otherwise contrary to law." 
 
 
Ravindranathan argues that the evidence that she 
presented before the Residency Appeals Committee rebutted the 
statutory presumption of nonresidency.  Continuing, she states 
that "there is no evidence in the record which could arguably 
be said to support the decision of the Committee."  
Ravindranathan asserts that the circuit court "erred by 
treating the statutory presumption of nonresidency as evidence 
of nonresidency." 
 
We disagree with Ravindranathan.  VCU was not required to 
present evidence to demonstrate that Ravindranathan was not a 
domiciliary of this Commonwealth.  Rather, Code § 23-7.4(B) 
requires that a matriculating student who has entered an 
institution and is classified as an out-of-state student rebut 
by clear and convincing evidence the presumption that the 
 
5
student is in the Commonwealth for the purpose of attending 
school and not as a bona fide domiciliary. 
 
Even though Ravindranathan presented evidence that she 
registered to vote in Virginia, paid Virginia income taxes, 
registered her automobile in Virginia, and possessed a 
Virginia driver's license, the Residency Appeals Committee 
concluded that she failed to present clear and sufficient 
evidence of her intent to make Virginia her domicile.  The 
Committee stated:  "The Committee's interpretation of the 
information presented is that you came to Virginia for 
educational purposes and that those purposes are your primary 
reason for remaining in Virginia at this time." 
 
The circuit court correctly refused to reweigh the 
evidence considered by the Residency Appeals Committee and, as 
required by Code § 23-7.4:3, the circuit court limited its 
review to "whether the decision reached by the institution 
could reasonably be said, on the basis of the record, not to 
be arbitrary, capricious or otherwise contrary to the law."  
Code § 23-7.4:3.  Upon review of the record, the circuit court 
held that the Residency Appeals Committee's decision was not 
arbitrary because the facts that Ravindranathan presented in 
support of her petition "could be considered . . . auxiliary 
to fulfilling educational objectives or are routinely 
performed by temporary residents of the Commonwealth' and 
 
6
therefore do not constitute a change in domicile.  Code § 23-
7.4." 
 
On appeal, the sole issue that we may consider is whether 
the circuit court was plainly wrong when it held that the 
Residency Appeals Committee's decision was not arbitrary, 
capricious, or otherwise contrary to the law.  Our review of 
the record reveals that the facts upon which Ravindranathan 
relies to support her purported Virginia domicile could also 
be deemed auxiliary to fulfilling her educational objectives 
or are routinely performed by temporary residents of this 
Commonwealth.  Thus, the Residency Appeals Committee's 
decision was not arbitrary or capricious, and the circuit 
court's judgment upon review of that decision was not plainly 
wrong.  Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the 
circuit court. 
Affirmed. 
 
7