GMU’s decision to deny a student’s request for in-state tuition reclassification was not arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. In finding otherwise, the circuit court exceeded the scope of its review under Code § 23.1-510(C) by reweighing the evidence and substituting its judgment for GMU’s.
Ample evidence supports GMU’s conclusion that the student failed to carry her burden of proving her alleged Virginia domicile by clear and convincing evidence and reinforces the primacy of education as her reason for residing in Virginia. Although the student presented evidence of a Virginia driver’s license, part-time employment in Virginia, 2015 Virginia income taxes, a Virginia lease co-signed with her brother, participation in a Virginia business owned by her brother, and a Virginia bank account established in 2014, each of these acts could reasonably be deemed to be auxiliary to her educational goals or routinely performed by temporary residents.
Reversed and final judgment.