A citizen of Cuba sought to remain in the United States.
After her second application for an "adjustment of status" was denied and a final order of removal was issued, she sued the district director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, asserting that the denial violated the Administrative Procedure Act. She argued that a material issue of genuine fact existed as to whether the passport she showed to an immigration inspector was fraudulent. Therefore, she claimed, the district court had erroneously granted summary judgment in favor of the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. She appealed the district court's decision, seeking to relitigate this issue of fact.
What evidence, if any, should the district court have reviewed when determining whether the decision of the agency to deny the woman's application for adjustment of status was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion? Should the court of appeals permit her to relitigate this factual issue de novo?