Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 02-21-2023

Case Style:

Jacklyn Hyonk Lee and Jongbum Pak v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service

Case Number: 3:21-cv-94

Judge: Michael H. Simon

Court: United States District Court for the District of Oregon (Multnomah County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Portland Immigration Law Lawyer Directory

If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Portland, Oregon immigration lawyer represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendants on an Administration Procedure Act and due process violation theories.

Federal Courthouse - Porland, Oregon

Federal Courthouse - Portland, Oregon

MoreLaw Legal News For Portland

Plaintiffs Jacklyn Hyonk Lee (Lee) and her husband Jongbum Pak (Pak) (collectively, Plaintiffs) bring this lawsuit alleging that Defendants, who are U.S. government officials, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Plaintiffs' due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs' claims arise out of the denial by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) of Lee's I-130 immigrant petition on behalf of Pak and affirmance of that decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Plaintiffs also challenge the denial by USCIS of Pak's I-485 application for permanent residency. Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims, arguing that the government's conduct was neither arbitrary nor capricious and did not violate Plaintiffs' due process rights.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides for judicial review of final agency action. 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. Under the APA, a court must “hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . found to be-arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). “An agency must ‘examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.'” Gill v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 913 F.3d 1179, 1187 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)). Agency action is “arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs., 463 U.S. at 43; see also Gill, 913 F.3d at 1187. The basis for the agency's decision must come from the record. Gill, 913 F.3d at 1187.

Outcome: Motion to dismissed granted.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case