Legal Opinion
Chi-Feng Chang v. Thornburgh
District Court, N.D. Texas
Decided June 29, 1989No. Civ. A. CA3-89-0020-DPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
FITZWATER, District Judge.
This is an action by two aliens who contend the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) erred by denying a petition for sixth preference immigrant status. Finding the agency’s denial of the petition to be neither arbitrary, capricious, nor an abuse of discretion, the court grants summary judgment in favor of defendants.
I
Plaintiff, Chi-Feng Chang (“Chi-Feng”), is a 35-year old male citizen of the Republic of China. Chi-Feng was born in Inchon, Korea. 1 On or about August 26, 1985, he applied for an alien employment certification with…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Sam I. Feldman, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- North American Industries, Inc. v. Sam I. Feldman, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1983
- Duke Power Company v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Just Bagels Manufacturing, Inc. v. MayorkasDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Rizvi v. Department of Homeland SecurityDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2014
- Gadhave v. ThompsonDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2023
- Spencer Enterprises, Inc. Li-Hui Chang, and Chung-Chuan Sun Jerry Chien-Hua Raan Ping Fu Lu v. United States of America United States Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003