Innova Solutions, Inc. v. Baran

Decision Date10 October 2018
Docket NumberCase No. 17-cv-03674-VKD
Parties INNOVA SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Kathy A. BARAN, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California

Jonathan Roger Sturman, David M. Sturman, Law Offices of David M. Sturman, A.P.C., Encino, CA, for Plaintiff.

Joshua Samuel Press, United States Department of Justice, Elizabeth Kurlan, Office of Immigration Litigation-District Court Section, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, United States Magistrate Judge

The Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") permits non-citizens to work in the United States on a temporary basis, if they are sponsored by an employer in a "specialty occupation." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). Plaintiff Innova Solutions, LLC ("Innova") filed a Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker ("Petition") on behalf of its intended beneficiary, Rajesh Gogumalla, whom Innova planned to hire for a Technical Recruiter position.1 The Petition was denied by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") on the ground that Innova failed to establish that the Technical Recruiter position was a "specialty occupation" under the INA and related regulations. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 706, Innova now seeks judicial review of that decision, contending that USCIS2 acted arbitrarily and capriciously and abused its discretion.

The matter is now before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court held a hearing on August 28, 2018. Having considered the parties' respective moving and responding papers, the presentations of counsel at the hearing, and the record in this case, the Court denies Innova's motion for summary judgment and grants the Director's motion for summary judgment.3

I. BACKGROUND

Innova is a for-profit company based in Santa Clara, California that provides information technology services to businesses in a variety of industries. At the time it submitted the Petition in question, Innova had 50 employees and gross annual revenues of about $19 million. AR4 24.

Innova offered Mr. Gogumalla a position as a Technical Recruiter. On April 11, 2016, Innova submitted the Petition, requesting an H-1B visa for Mr. Gogumalla as a nonimmigrant working in a "specialty occupation" pursuant to INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). Id. at 19-97. According to Innova's Petition, Mr. Gogumalla earned a bachelor's degree in computer applications from Osmana University in India and also holds the U.S. academic equivalent of a master's degree in business administration. Id. at 36, 83-88. Among the papers Innova submitted in support of its Petition was a letter from its Senior Vice President of Human Resources and Operations identifying Mr. Gogumalla's duties and responsibilities as Technical Recruiter.5 Id. at 35-37.

On October 5, 2016, USCIS issued a Request for Evidence, seeking additional information, including evidence establishing that the Technical Recruiter position is a "specialty occupation." AR 98-106. Among other things, Innova was asked to provide a more detailed description of the work to be performed, the percentage of time to be spent on each duty, the level of responsibility required, the hours of work per week, as well as the minimum education, training and experience necessary to do the job. Id. at 99-106.

Innova responded on December 27, 2016, and included in its response the following additional information about the Technical Recruiter's job duties, assessing that 55% of Mr. Gogumalla's time would be spent on tasks Innova believed required a bachelor's degree:6

                Duties Level of Percentage of
                Difficulty Time Spent
                1.  Identifying and providing resources for various             4              30%
                    positions (contracting/consulting and full time) as
                    needed by the Sales Team and Hiring Managers and
                    managing full-cycle recruiting efforts right from
                    recruitment gathering through offer, negotiation and
                    closure
                2.  Supporting the Sales Team/Technical Managers in             3              10%
                    terms of resource and account management
                    developing new ideas to create sourcing strategies
                    and exploring alternative avenues for recruiting
                    (referrals, job fairs, campus, etc.), Mentoring/Guiding
                    junior recruiters and developing Job Description and
                    posting/publishing them on various job boards and
                    online forums
                3.  Responsible for pre-screening the candidates and            4              15%
                    forwarding the qualified resumes to Account
                    Manager/Technical Team/Hiring Manager
                4.  Developing, maintaining, and strengthening vendor           4              5%
                    base and candidate resource pool in various technical
                    areas
                5.  Handling Vendor MSA sign-up process; negotiating            3              10%
                    the contract terms and hourly rates
                6.  Preparing/Approving vendor SOW for new closures,            2              10%
                    updating SOWs for project renewals, updating
                    Vendor Cost Sheet, scheduling initial technical
                    screening, comprehensive in-person technical
                    interviews and follow up procedures
                7.  Initiating the process of Background and Reference          2              5%
                    Checks upon offer acceptance/closure
                    communicating the new contractors/new hire
                    information to Account Dept. and Operations Team
                8.  For full time hires, coordinate within the company to       3              5%
                    ensure smooth induction and orientation
                9.  Keeping abreast with company hiring and                     4              5%
                    immigration policies and relevant laws and
                    regulations
                10. Ensuring compliance with EEOC and ADA                       3              5%
                    guidelines, create, maintain, and update key
                    recruiting statistics — Daily/Weekly/Monthly status
                    reports
                

AR 127-28.

On February 9, 2017, USCIS denied the Petition, concluding that Innova failed to establish that the Technical Recruiter position is a "specialty occupation." AR 2-9. Innova contends that the USCIS failed to properly consider the evidence and did not articulate any reasonable basis for its decision, and that the agency's decision therefore must be set aside as arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The APA allows for judicial review of an agency action and provides that the 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). While the reviewing court "must conduct a searching and careful inquiry into the facts," the standard of review "is a narrow one," and "a court is not empowered by section 706(2)(A) to substitute its judgment for that of the agency." Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture , 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) ).

In reviewing an agency's decision, a court considers whether there was a clear error of judgment and whether the decision was based on relevant factors. Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n , 18 F.3d at 1471. "In order for an agency decision to be upheld under the arbitrary and capricious standard, a court must find that evidence before the agency provided a rational and ample basis for its decision." Id. All that is required is a rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions made by the agency. Friends of Santa Clara River v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , 887 F.3d 906, 920 (9th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, an agency's decision will not be vacated unless the agency relied on factors Congress did not intend for the agency to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that is counter to the evidence presented, or provided an explanation that is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a difference in viewpoints or as the product of the agency's expertise. Id. at 921.

Although courts routinely resolve APA challenges to an agency's administrative decision by summary judgment, courts do not follow the traditional analysis to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, because "there are no disputed facts that the district court must resolve." Occidental Eng'g Co. v. I.N.S. , 753 F.2d 766, 769 (9th Cir. 1985). Rather, "the function of the district court is to determine whether or not as a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency to make the decision it did." Id. The court's review is limited to the administrative record, to which both sides have stipulated. Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n , 18 F.3d at 1472.

III. DISCUSSION

The sole issue presented is whether USCIS erred in concluding that Innova's Technical Recruiter position is not a "specialty occupation." A "specialty occupation" is "an occupation that requires theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States." 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1)(A), (B). The related regulation provides:

Specialty occupation means an occupation which requires theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.

8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii).

Innova can establish that Mr. Gogumalla would perform a "specialty occupation" by showing that the Technical...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Hosp. Bus. Servs. v. Jaddou
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 20, 2021
    ... HOSPITAL BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. Plaintiff, v. UR M. JADDOU, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND ... occupational information.” RELX, Inc. v ... Baran , 397 F.Supp.3d 41, 54 (D.D.C. 2019) ... B ... set by the regulation ... ”); Innova Solutions, Inc ... v. Baran , 983 F.3d 428, 432, (9 th Cir. 2020) ... ...
  • Vision Builders, LLC v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • October 5, 2020
    ...those organizations are much like it in "size, scope, . . . scale of operations, expenditures, or revenue." Innova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2018); see 3Q Digital, Inc. v. USCIS, No. 19-cv-579-RCL, 2020 WL 1079068, at *5 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2020) (finding USCIS......
  • Innova Solutions, Inc. v. Baran, Case No. 17-cv-03674-VKD
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • August 8, 2019
    ...specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.’ " Innova Solutions, Inc. v. Baran , 338 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1)(B) ). With respect to this first criterion, the parties do not dispute that USCIS lo......
  • PayJoy, Inc. v. Cuccinelli
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • July 16, 2019
    ...To the contrary, the Court's own research has only uncovered cases supporting USCIS's interpretation. See Innova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (finding USCIS did not abuse its discretion in reading the degree requirement together with the "specific specialty" l......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT