1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9
10 SUN FU, Case No. 24-cv-03535-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER GRANTING 13 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION SECURITY, and others, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 Defendants. Re: ECF 28, 30 15 16 Plaintiff Sun Fu alleges that Defendants Department of Homeland Security and Ur 17 M. Jaddou (in her official capacity as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 18 Services (USCIS)) denied her I-539 application to extend her H-4 nonimmigrant visa 19 status based on an incorrect inadmissibility finding for willfully misrepresenting a material 20 fact. 21 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants’ 22 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons below, the Court: GRANTS 23 Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for 24 Summary Judgment. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 A. Factual Background 27 The following facts are undisputed. In 2013, Plaintiff entered the United States as 1 extend their visas by participating in the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, in 2 which students obtain temporary employment directly related to their major area of study. 3 In 2015, Plaintiff applied for, and USCIS approved, F-1 OPT employment authorization 4 for February 2016 to February 2017. In April 2016, Plaintiff began her OPT employment 5 with Findream LLC. However, Findream did not provide Plaintiff any work assignments 6 so, in June 2016, she began searching for alternative employment. In September 2016, 7 Plaintiff began working for another company, Fortinet, and filed a new Form I-20 to reflect 8 this change. The Form I-20 listed Plaintiff’s previous employment with Findream. 9 In November 2016, Plaintiff requested, and USCIS approved, additional F-1 OPT 10 employment authorization from February 2017 through February 2019. In January 2019, 11 Plaintiff transferred to Fortinet’s Vancouver office. 12 In 2019, Findream and its owner Kelly Huang pled guilty to conspiracy to commit 13 visa fraud by providing false documents for F-1 students to fraudulently extend their 14 nonimmigrant status. Plaintiff first learned of this prosecution in 2020. 15 In November 2021, Plaintiff married her husband, an H-1B nonimmigrant visa 16 holder. The next month, Plaintiff filed an application for a nonimmigrant H-4 visa to enter 17 the United States as the spouse of an H-1B visa holder. In December 2021 and January 18 2022, Plaintiff attended two interviews with the United States Consulate in Canada. She 19 was questioned about her affiliation with Findream. The officers issued Plaintiff an H-4 20 visa. In February 2022, at the port of entry for the United States, Customs and Border 21 Protection officials questioned Plaintiff about her affiliation with Findream. The officials 22 found Plaintiff admissible. 23 In January 2023, Plaintiff filed an I-539, Application to Extend/Change 24 Nonimmigrant Status to extend her H-4 status. In May 2024, USCIS issued Plaintiff a 25 Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) stating that Plaintiff was inadmissible due to her willful 26 misrepresentation on her 2016 Form I-765 because she had not actually performed work 27 with Findream as required and had received false paperwork to fulfill the requirements 1 In June 2024, Plaintiff filed a response to the NOID asserting additional evidence. 2 In November 2024, USCIS issued a decision denying Plaintiff’s I-539 application for 3 willful misrepresentation of her Findream employment. 4 B. Procedural Background 5 Plaintiff filed her original complaint on June 12, 2024 and a first amended 6 complaint on December 18, 2024. ECF 1, 20. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. 7 ECF 28. Defendants opposed and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. ECF 30. 8 Plaintiff replied. ECF 36. Defendants replied. ECF 43. 9 On December 17, 2025, the Court requested a copy of the Certified Administrative 10 Record for its review. ECF 39. Defendants filed a copy. ECF 41, 42. 11 The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. ECF 8, 14. 12 II. THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO REVIEW USCIS’S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S I-539 APPLICATION 13 Plaintiff argues the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to review USCIS’s 14 inadmissibility determination on which it based its November 2024 denial of her I-539 15 application because the issue presents a mixed question of law and fact. ECF 28 at 23. 16 Defendants contend the Court cannot review its initial determination because it was 17 preliminary, and not a discrete, final action. ECF 30 at 21–22. 18 “The APA prohibits courts from reviewing agency decisions when a specific statute 19 ‘preclude[s] judicial review’ or where ‘agency action is committed to agency discretion by 20 law.’” Wang v. Noem, 793 F. Supp. 3d 1231, 1239 (C.D. Cal. 2025) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 21 701(a)(1) & (a)(2)). Further, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) precludes courts 22 from reviewing decisions specifically “in the discretion” of USCIS. Id. (citing 8 U.S.C. § 23 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)). 24 USCIS denied Plaintiff’s I-539 application pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.1, which 25 states: “USCIS may grant the extension or amendment in its discretion.” 8 C.F.R. § 26 214.1(c)(7) (emphasis added). The Court first looks to the plain language of the statute to 27 determine if the provision grants discretion. Wang, 793 F. Supp. 3d at 1239; see 1 also Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. at 6, 13–14 (2024) (examining the face of a provision 2 of the INA first to evaluate whether it granted agency discretion)). Section 214.1 states 3 that the agency “may” grant the extension or amendment for a nonimmigrant “in its 4 discretion.” 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(c)(7). This language “clearly connotates discretion” because 5 it allows USCIS the option to grant the extension or amendment, rather than making it 6 mandatory. Bouarfa, 604 U.S. at 13 (internal citations omitted); Wang, 793 F. Supp. 3d at 7 1240 (collecting cases). 8 Because USCIS’s I-539 denial is discretionary, the Court lacks jurisdiction to 9 review the agency’s decision. Nor can the Court review USCIS’s initial inadmissibility 10 finding for “willful misrepresentation” under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) because it is an 11 “underlying eligibility determination made in support of the ultimate discretionary 12 decision” which is “beyond judicial review.” Zia v. Garland, 112 F.4th 1194, 1200–01 13 (9th Cir. 2024); Magana-Magana v. Bondi, 129 F.4th 557, 567 (9th Cir. 2025) (precluding 14 judicial review of “facts underlying” discretionary decisions). Accordingly, the Court 15 lacks subject matter jurisdiction to evaluate USCIS’s denial or the underlying admissibility 16 finding. 17 III. USCIS’S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S I-539 DID NOT VIOLATE THE APA 18 Plaintiff argues Defendants’ decision was arbitrary and capricious because USCIS 19 (1) knew of her Findream affiliation prior to the I-539 application, so it was not new, 20 material information, and (2) departed from the State Department and CBP’s admissibility 21 findings. ECF 28 at 26–29.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9
10 SUN FU, Case No. 24-cv-03535-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER GRANTING 13 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION SECURITY, and others, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 Defendants. Re: ECF 28, 30 15 16 Plaintiff Sun Fu alleges that Defendants Department of Homeland Security and Ur 17 M. Jaddou (in her official capacity as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 18 Services (USCIS)) denied her I-539 application to extend her H-4 nonimmigrant visa 19 status based on an incorrect inadmissibility finding for willfully misrepresenting a material 20 fact. 21 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants’ 22 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons below, the Court: GRANTS 23 Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for 24 Summary Judgment. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 A. Factual Background 27 The following facts are undisputed. In 2013, Plaintiff entered the United States as 1 extend their visas by participating in the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, in 2 which students obtain temporary employment directly related to their major area of study. 3 In 2015, Plaintiff applied for, and USCIS approved, F-1 OPT employment authorization 4 for February 2016 to February 2017. In April 2016, Plaintiff began her OPT employment 5 with Findream LLC. However, Findream did not provide Plaintiff any work assignments 6 so, in June 2016, she began searching for alternative employment. In September 2016, 7 Plaintiff began working for another company, Fortinet, and filed a new Form I-20 to reflect 8 this change. The Form I-20 listed Plaintiff’s previous employment with Findream. 9 In November 2016, Plaintiff requested, and USCIS approved, additional F-1 OPT 10 employment authorization from February 2017 through February 2019. In January 2019, 11 Plaintiff transferred to Fortinet’s Vancouver office. 12 In 2019, Findream and its owner Kelly Huang pled guilty to conspiracy to commit 13 visa fraud by providing false documents for F-1 students to fraudulently extend their 14 nonimmigrant status. Plaintiff first learned of this prosecution in 2020. 15 In November 2021, Plaintiff married her husband, an H-1B nonimmigrant visa 16 holder. The next month, Plaintiff filed an application for a nonimmigrant H-4 visa to enter 17 the United States as the spouse of an H-1B visa holder. In December 2021 and January 18 2022, Plaintiff attended two interviews with the United States Consulate in Canada. She 19 was questioned about her affiliation with Findream. The officers issued Plaintiff an H-4 20 visa. In February 2022, at the port of entry for the United States, Customs and Border 21 Protection officials questioned Plaintiff about her affiliation with Findream. The officials 22 found Plaintiff admissible. 23 In January 2023, Plaintiff filed an I-539, Application to Extend/Change 24 Nonimmigrant Status to extend her H-4 status. In May 2024, USCIS issued Plaintiff a 25 Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) stating that Plaintiff was inadmissible due to her willful 26 misrepresentation on her 2016 Form I-765 because she had not actually performed work 27 with Findream as required and had received false paperwork to fulfill the requirements 1 In June 2024, Plaintiff filed a response to the NOID asserting additional evidence. 2 In November 2024, USCIS issued a decision denying Plaintiff’s I-539 application for 3 willful misrepresentation of her Findream employment. 4 B. Procedural Background 5 Plaintiff filed her original complaint on June 12, 2024 and a first amended 6 complaint on December 18, 2024. ECF 1, 20. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. 7 ECF 28. Defendants opposed and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. ECF 30. 8 Plaintiff replied. ECF 36. Defendants replied. ECF 43. 9 On December 17, 2025, the Court requested a copy of the Certified Administrative 10 Record for its review. ECF 39. Defendants filed a copy. ECF 41, 42. 11 The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. ECF 8, 14. 12 II. THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO REVIEW USCIS’S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S I-539 APPLICATION 13 Plaintiff argues the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to review USCIS’s 14 inadmissibility determination on which it based its November 2024 denial of her I-539 15 application because the issue presents a mixed question of law and fact. ECF 28 at 23. 16 Defendants contend the Court cannot review its initial determination because it was 17 preliminary, and not a discrete, final action. ECF 30 at 21–22. 18 “The APA prohibits courts from reviewing agency decisions when a specific statute 19 ‘preclude[s] judicial review’ or where ‘agency action is committed to agency discretion by 20 law.’” Wang v. Noem, 793 F. Supp. 3d 1231, 1239 (C.D. Cal. 2025) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 21 701(a)(1) & (a)(2)). Further, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) precludes courts 22 from reviewing decisions specifically “in the discretion” of USCIS. Id. (citing 8 U.S.C. § 23 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)). 24 USCIS denied Plaintiff’s I-539 application pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.1, which 25 states: “USCIS may grant the extension or amendment in its discretion.” 8 C.F.R. § 26 214.1(c)(7) (emphasis added). The Court first looks to the plain language of the statute to 27 determine if the provision grants discretion. Wang, 793 F. Supp. 3d at 1239; see 1 also Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. at 6, 13–14 (2024) (examining the face of a provision 2 of the INA first to evaluate whether it granted agency discretion)). Section 214.1 states 3 that the agency “may” grant the extension or amendment for a nonimmigrant “in its 4 discretion.” 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(c)(7). This language “clearly connotates discretion” because 5 it allows USCIS the option to grant the extension or amendment, rather than making it 6 mandatory. Bouarfa, 604 U.S. at 13 (internal citations omitted); Wang, 793 F. Supp. 3d at 7 1240 (collecting cases). 8 Because USCIS’s I-539 denial is discretionary, the Court lacks jurisdiction to 9 review the agency’s decision. Nor can the Court review USCIS’s initial inadmissibility 10 finding for “willful misrepresentation” under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) because it is an 11 “underlying eligibility determination made in support of the ultimate discretionary 12 decision” which is “beyond judicial review.” Zia v. Garland, 112 F.4th 1194, 1200–01 13 (9th Cir. 2024); Magana-Magana v. Bondi, 129 F.4th 557, 567 (9th Cir. 2025) (precluding 14 judicial review of “facts underlying” discretionary decisions). Accordingly, the Court 15 lacks subject matter jurisdiction to evaluate USCIS’s denial or the underlying admissibility 16 finding. 17 III. USCIS’S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S I-539 DID NOT VIOLATE THE APA 18 Plaintiff argues Defendants’ decision was arbitrary and capricious because USCIS 19 (1) knew of her Findream affiliation prior to the I-539 application, so it was not new, 20 material information, and (2) departed from the State Department and CBP’s admissibility 21 findings. ECF 28 at 26–29. Defendants argue the I-539 application constituted its first 22 opportunity to consider Plaintiff’s admissibility and Findream employment, and it did 23 evaluate the State Department and CBP’s prior conclusions. ECF 30 at 19–24. 24 If this Court did have jurisdiction, it could set aside a final agency decision if it was 25 “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 26 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). An agency abuses its discretion “if there is no evidence to support the 27 decision or if the decision is based on an improper understanding of the law.” Ferreira v. 1 & Immigration Sves., 596 F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010)). “To determine whether an 2 || agency violated the arbitrary and capricious standard, [the] court must determine whether 3 || the agency articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” 4 || Id. “In order for the court to confirm the agency’s decision as rationally connected to the 5 || facts, the agency must have considered ‘substantial evidence’ in support of its decision.” 6 || □□□ (quoting Nakamoto y. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 881-82 (9th Cir. 2004)). “The 7 || substantial evidence standard is ‘deferential’ and requires affirmation of the agency 8 || decision ‘unless the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to 9 || find the facts were as [plaintiff] alleged.’” Jd. (citing Khodagholian v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 10 |} 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003)). 11 Even if this Court had jurisdiction (which it does not), Plaintiff's claims would fail. 12 || The NOID discussed in detail the evidence submitted and the basis for USCIS’s intended 13 |} denial of Plaintiff's 1-539 application. ECF 41 at 32-43. Plaintiff was allowed an 14 || opportunity to respond and present additional evidence. Jd. at 42-43. In its denial of 15 |} Plaintiff's I-539 application, USCIS considered this additional evidence, weighed the 16 || discretionary factors, and concluded Plaintiff did not merit a favorable exercise of 5 17 || discretion. /d. at 17-18, 30. For each fact, USCIS “articulated a rational connection 5 18 || between the facts found and the choice made.” Ferreira, 767 F. Supp. 3d at 936. Plaintiff 19 || has not presented any evidence “so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to 20 || find the fact were as [plaintiff] alleged.” Jd. 21 || IV. CONCLUSION 22 The Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS 23 || Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 || Dated: December 31, 2025 28 United States Magistrate Judge