Andrii Borushevskyi v. USCIS

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: May 30, 2024
• Docket: 23-5116
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 23-5116 September Term, 2023 1:19-cv-03034-EGS-ZMF Filed On: May 30, 2024 Andrii Borushevskyi,

Appellant

v.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Wilkins, Childs, and Pan, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s March 27, 2023 order be affirmed. First, appellant has shown no error in the district court’s conclusion that the plain language of the regulations at issue confirmed the agency’s interpretation of those regulations as requiring him to submit evidence tracing the complete path of his capital investment, and his policy arguments fail because this court “cannot disregard the plain meaning of a regulation based on policy considerations.” Zhang v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 978 F.3d 1314, 1322 (D.C. Cir. 2020). Second, the district court correctly concluded that substantial evidence supported the agency’s decision that the evidence submitted by appellant did not trace the complete path of his capital investment. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 23-5116 September Term, 2023

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

Page 2