Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hawaii Saeronam Presbyterian Church v. Ziglar
Citation: 243 F. App'x 224Docket: No. 05-15259
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; June 14, 2007; Federal Appellate Court
Hawaii Saeronam Presbyterian Church (HSPC) sought a "special immigrant religious worker" visa for its minister, Kwang Tae Kim. The petition was denied by the California Service Center of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the denial was upheld by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) and the district court. HSPC argued that the AAO erred in requiring proof of Kim's full-time employment as a minister during the two years preceding the visa petition. HSPC contended that even if the AAO's interpretation was correct, it had provided sufficient evidence of Kim's employment. The review focused on the AAO's decision, which could only be reversed if deemed arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unsupported by substantial evidence. The relevant statute requires that a minister must be a member of a bona fide religious denomination for two years, seek to enter the U.S. solely for ministerial work, and have continuously carried out such work for the two years prior to the petition. The statutes and regulations do not explicitly mandate full-time employment during this period but also do not preclude such an interpretation. The AAO's requirement for full-time employment aligns with prior case law (Matter of Faith Assembly Church), which established that part-time ministerial work does not qualify for special immigrant classification. The AAO's decision was found to be reasonable and not contrary to the statute, warranting Chevron deference. The AAO determined that HSPC failed to demonstrate Kim's full-time employment due to inconsistencies in financial records and the absence of supporting documents like tax records or bank statements. The district court agreed that these discrepancies justified the AAO's decision, which was ultimately affirmed. This ruling is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as outlined by specific circuit rules.