Opinion
No. 1D21-1660
03-23-2022
Allison K. PORRAS, Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Byron Flagg of Byron Flagg, PA, Gainesville, for Appellant. Mary Ashley McCollough, Office of Vice President and General Counsel, University of Florida, Gainesville, for Appellee.
Byron Flagg of Byron Flagg, PA, Gainesville, for Appellant.
Mary Ashley McCollough, Office of Vice President and General Counsel, University of Florida, Gainesville, for Appellee.
Per Curiam.
Allison K. Porras appeals a final decision of the University of Florida denying her request to be reclassified as a Florida resident for tuition purposes. Porras argues that UF failed to: (1) hold a hearing on her reclassification request, (2) explain in writing why it denied her request, and (3) ensure that the committee considering the appeal of her request consisted of at least three members. Finding no merit in Porras’ arguments, we affirm.
Porras, who grew up in Missouri, enrolled at UF as a non-resident student for the 2018 fall semester. After her admission, Porras twice applied for reclassification as a Florida resident so that she could pay in-state tuition. UF denied both requests, concluding that Porras failed to provide documentation to show that her presence in Florida was to maintain a bona fide domicile rather than a temporary residence or abode incident to her enrollment at UF. In 2021, Porras filed a third request for reclassification. UF again denied the request for lack of documentation. Porras sought review of the denial before the residency appeal commission. But the commission agreed with UF's decision to deny her request for reclassification. This timely appeal follows.
This Court reviews UF's factual findings for competent, substantial evidence. MB Doral, LLC v. Dep't of Bus. & Pro. Regul. , 295 So. 3d 850, 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). We review its legal conclusions de novo. Id.
First, Porras argues that UF violated her right to due process by not affording her a hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Her argument fails because UF did not need to comply with the APA hearing requirements. See Matar v. Fla. Int'l Univ. , 944 So. 2d 1153, 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (recognizing that higher education institutions follow different procedures than other administrative agencies). This is because "[s]ections 120.569 and 120.57 do not apply to any proceeding in which the substantial interests of a student are determined by a state university or community college." § 120.81(1)(g), Fla. Stat. (2020). Because Porras was not entitled to a hearing under chapter 120, her due process claim fails.
Next, Porras argues that UF violated section 1009.21(12), Florida Statutes, by failing to explain why it denied her request for residency reclassification. This statute requires the residency appeal committee to "render to the student the final residency determination in writing. The institution must advise the student of the reasons for the determination." § 1009.21(12), Fla. Stat. (2020). This argument fails because UF and the residency appeal committee did provide the required written explanation when denying Porras’ reclassification request. UF explained that it denied Porras’ request because she failed to provide documentation to prove that she was in Florida to maintain a bona fide domicile, not just to enroll at UF. Thus, the record refutes Porras’ argument that UF failed to provide her with the written explanation required by statute.
Last, Porras argues that UF violated section 1009.21(12) by failing to ensure that the residency appeal committee consisted of at least three members. Because the Residency Appeal Worksheet reflects only two sets of initials, Porras asserts that only two people reviewed her appeal. But Porras’ argument that the committee consisted of only two members depends on facts that are not contained in the record below. There is no evidence in the record about the composition of the residency appeal committee. And thus, this Court cannot determine whether UF complied with this statutory requirement. See Hill v. State , 307 So. 3d 897, 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (explaining that appellants have the burden to show that an error occurred and to provide to the appellate court a record adequate to support the appeal). Finding no error by UF in its decision to deny Porras’ request for residency reclassification, we AFFIRM.
Rowe, C.J., and Lewis and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.