review. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorian, 470 U.S. 729, 743-44, 105 S.Ct. 1598, 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (1985); Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394-95 (2d Cir.2005); J. Andrew Lange, Inc. v. FAA, 208 F.3d 389, 391, (2d Cir.2000). Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing, by citation to evidence in the administrative record, that an agency’s actions are arbitrary and capricious. See Boatmen v. Gutierrez, 429 F.Supp.2d 543, 548 (E.D.N.Y.2006); Glam Fashion, Inc. v. Holder, 2012 WL 352309, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012). When undertaking APA review, a court properly may grant summary judgment based upon a finding that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute with regard to the administrative record. See Soler v. G & U, Inc., 615 F.Supp. 736, 740 (S.D.NY.1985); Just Bag BIA 1975) (<HOLDING>). USCIS’s interpretation of the INA is
holding that the law to be applied in determining the validity of  an outofstate marriage is the law of the state in which the marriage occurred holding that money invested in voluntary investment plan during marriage was marital property because it was property acquired during marriage recognizing that basis for deportation was aliens misrepresentation about his marriage not the validity of his marriage holding that where the petitioners prior marriage was dissolved after the subsequent marriage the subsequent marriages validity should be analyzed under the law of the place where it was celebrated holding husband could not have marriage annulled because wife was pregnant by him at time of marriage