Mfg., Inc. v. Mayorkas, 900 F.Supp.2d 363, 371-73 (S.D.N.Y.2012). II. Application There is no genuine dispute as to any material fact in this case. The parties disagree only as to whether USCIS’s decision that Petitioner’s marriage to Grazyna was invalid for immigration purposes was arbitrary and capricious. The government argues that it was reasonable to require Petitioner to submit documentation of a marriage in compliance with New York State law. (Respt’s Mem. at 6.) Petitioner argues that it was arbitrary and capricious for USCIS to deny his 1-130 Petition, because a marriage ceremony conducted by a foreign consular officer at a foreign consulate located in New York is valid for immigration purposes. (Pet.’s Mem. at 3.) A. The Agency’s Choice of Law Rule The Court begins IA 1978) (<HOLDING>); Matter of Arenas, 15 I. & N. Dec. 174, 174-75
holding that the petitioners marriage to the beneficiary was valid for immigration purposes because it complied with the law of the philippines which was the place of celebration holding that the petitioners due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing because the immigration judge was biased was the kind of procedural error that required exhaustion holding that the meaning of the coverage limit is governed by the law of place of contracting because it goes to the substance of obligation holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the bia to fail to consider the merits of a petitioners claim holding that petitioners reliance on a case which concluded that a defendants right to a fair trial was violated was insufficient to place court on notice that petitioner was advancing a constitutional due process claim because the decision was based on state law