Virginia Commonwealth University v. Su, 722 S.E.2d 561

Su, a Chinese national, came to the U.S. in 2007, attended high school in Minnesota, and enrolled at VCU in August 2009 as an out-of-state student.
In May 2010, Su sought in-state tuition by filing an Application for Change of Domicile; the Residency Appeals Officer denied, citing federal law prohibiting an F-1 visa holder from establishing Virginia domicile.
Su appealed to the Residency Appeals Committee, which held an evidentiary hearing after Su disclosed, for the first time, that he became a permanent resident in March 2009.
The Committee denied the appeal, finding Su failed to rebut the presumption that his presence in Virginia was for educational purposes and citing inconsistencies and gaps in documentation.
Su challenged the Committee’s decision in circuit court, which reversed, holding Su had established Virginia domicile by clear and convincing evidence and abandoning previous domicile for at least a year.
This Court granted VCU’s appeal to review whether the circuit court erred in reversing the in-state tuition decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What standard governs circuit court review of in-state tuition decisions?	Su urges de novo review of the administrative decision.	VCU contends de novo review is proper under the governing statute.	De novo review applies; circuit court cannot substitute its judgment.
Did Su establish Virginia domicile by clear and convincing evidence?	Su asserts he domiciled in Virginia and abandoned prior domicile for at least a year.	VCU argues Su failed to rebut the educational-purposes presumption and his ties were auxiliary to schooling.	VCU's conclusion was not arbitrary or capricious; Su failed to prove domicile by clear and convincing evidence.
Was the circuit court review limited to the final administrative decision and correct record?	Su argues the circuit court properly reviewed the record and decision.	VCU argues the circuit court misapplied scope by reviewing initial determinations and outside-record statements.	Circuit court erred; review must be of the final administrative decision on the record.

George Mason University v. Floyd, 275 Va. 32, 654 S.E.2d 556 (2008) (adopts de novo review for in-state tuition decisions)
Ravindranathan v. Virginia Commonwealth University, 258 Va. 269, 519 S.E.2d 618 (1999) (clarifies burden on out-of-state students to rebut educational purposes)
School Bd. of the City of Norfolk v. Wescott, 254 Va. 218, 492 S.E.2d 146 (1997) (arbitrary and capricious standard defined as willful/unreasonable disregard of facts or law)