Hazuda

ORDER

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[24]

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[25]

Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defs.’ Mot.”) (Dkt. 24) and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (“PL’s Mot.”) (Dkt. 25).

I. Background

Plaintiff Chung Hou Hsiao seeks review under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) of the United States Citizenship *1095 and Immigration Services’s (“USCIS’s”) decision to deny his 1 — 485 applications for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status. The key issue in this case is whether his 1998 and 2000 1-140 petitions for an employment-based visa were “approvable when filed” such that Mr. Hsiao’s 1-485 applications should have been approved.

A. Relevant Immigration Law and Regulations

1. Adjustment of Status

Certain non-citizens, or “aliens” as the term is used in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), are eligible to adjust their status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence from within the United States, rather than having to return to be processed through the American consulate in their country of origin. 1 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (a). Certain individuals are…