Vansy CHAO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Department of Justice; Michael John Creppy, Board Member, Board of Immigration Appeals; Elaine C. Duke, Acting Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Leon Rodriguez, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Kimberly Zanotti, Field Director, USCIS, Washington, D.C. Field Office, Defendants-Appellees, 698 F. App'x 751

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vansy Chao appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants

summary judgment and dismissing Chao’s civil action, which was filed pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). See 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (2012). We review de novo the district court’s grant of

summary judgment, employing the same standard used by the district court. Roland v. USCIS, 850 F.3d 625, 628 (4th Cir. 2017). Pursuant to the APA, a “reviewing court shall ... hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be [ ] arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). On appeal, this court is limited to examining “whether the agency conformed with controlling statutes, and whether the agency has committed a clear error of judgment.” Holly Hill Farm Corp. v.

United States, 447 F.3d 258, 263 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Id. (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). We have considered Chao’s arguments on appeal in conjunction with the record and relevant authorities. We agree with the district court that the U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services’ denial of Chao’s 1-130 Petition for an Alien Relative benefiting his wife, which was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, is not arbitrary, capricious, contrary to established law, or otherwise an abuse of discretion, and that the dispositive factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (E). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its disposi-tive order. See Chao v. Sessions, No. 1:16-cv-00206-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2016).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED