Broadgate Inc. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Serv.

• Decision Date: 13 August 2010
• Docket Number: No. 10-cv-0941 (GK),10-cv-0941 (GK)
• Citation: 730 F.Supp.2d 240
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
• Parties: BROADGATE INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

730 F.Supp.2d 240

BROADGATE INC., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

No. 10-cv-0941 (GK).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Aug. 13, 2010.

Robert P. Charrow, Laura Metcoff Klaus, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Geoffrey Forney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GLADYS KESSLER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Broadgate, Inc., Logic Planet, Inc., DVR Softek Inc., TechServe Alliance, and the American Staffing Association ("ASA") bring this action under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., against Defendants United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of USCIS, United States Department of Homeland Security, and Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 3]. On July 7, 2010, the parties submitted a Joint Praecipe indicating their agreement with the Court's proposal to consolidate the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction with a determination on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2). The parties presented oral argument at a Motions Hearing held on August 5, 2010. Upon consideration of the parties' arguments, the Motion, Opposition, Reply, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Broadgate, Logic Planet, and DVR are software development and information technology firms which rely on a pool of foreign citizens and permanent residents in order to meet the hiring needs of their clients. Plaintiffs TechServe and ASA are not-for-profit membership corporations that qualify as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 601(6), which supply temporary employees to other businesses. Plaintiffs Broadgate, Logic Planet, and DVR are third-party employers, as are the members of Plaintiffs TechServe and ASA, and all Plaintiffs are small businesses within the meaning of § 3 of the Small Business Act, 5 U.S.C. § 601(3). Compl. ¶¶ 3-7.

Plaintiffs regularly submit petitions to Defendant USCIS for H1-B visas on behalfof the foreign employees they wish to hire. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) (H-1B visa program). The H-1B visa program permits aliens to enter the United States under a visa to perform services in a "specialty occupation," which is an occupation that "requires (a) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and (b) attainment of 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). If approved, an H-1B visa lasts for three years, and is renewable. 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(4); 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(15)(ii)(B)(1), 214.2(h)(13)(iii)(A). While only 65,000 H-1B visas are permitted each fiscal year, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g), USCIS has granted Plaintiffs and their members thousands of H-1B visas. See Pls.' Mot. for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 3] at 3.

In 2009, USCIS issued an immigration regulation, codified at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2, which sets forth special requirements for the admission, extension, and maintenance of status for certain "non-immigrant classes" ("Regulation"). One of the non-immigrant classes addressed is "temporary employees," which includes the foreign employees that Plaintiffs rely on in order to operate their businesses. The Regulation requires that H-1B petitions be filed by a "United States employer," defined as:

[A] person, firm, corporation, contractor, or other association, or organization in the United States which (1) engages a person to work within the United States; (2) has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee; and (3) has an Internal Revenue Service Tax Identification number.

8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Thus, the Regulation establishes five factors, referred to as the "control test," to assess whether there is an "employer-employee relationship" sufficient to grant an H-1B visa: whether the employer hires, pays, fires, supervises, or otherwise controls the work of an employee.

On January 8, 2010, Donald Neufeld, Associate Director of Defendant USCIS, issued a memorandum ("Neufeld Memorandum" or "Memorandum") to Service Center Directors relating to USCIS's H-1B visa program. Memorandum from Donald Neufeld, Associate Director, Serv. Ctr. Operations, USCIS, to Serv. Ctr. Dirs. (Jan. 8, 2010) (Ex. A to Pls.' Mot. for Preliminary Injunction) [hereinafter "Memorandum"]. The Neufeld Memorandum purports to clarify the Regulation's control test by setting forth eleven factors that adjudicators must consider in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists between a sponsor and a candidate for a H-1B visa program. See Memorandum at 4-5. Plaintiffs argue, however, that the Neufeld Memorandum establishes a different standard from the Regulation's control test, and therefore constitutes a new, binding rule. Because the Memorandum was not issued in accordance with the APA's procedures for agency rulemaking, Plaintiffs argue that this new "rule" must be invalidated.

Plaintiffs bring five counts in their Complaint. In Count I, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants are liable for violation of the notice and comment requirements of the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 706. In Count II, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., by failing to perform a Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis before issuing the Memorandum. In Count III, Plaintiffs claim that the Neufeld Memorandum is in excess of regulatory and statutoryauthority under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A) and (C). In Counts IV and V, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have engaged in arbitrary and capricious rulemaking in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and (D) because the Memorandum redefines the employer-employee relationship without justification or authority and was written by Neufeld, a USCIS employee not authorized by law to issue rules.

Defendants respond that the Neufeld Memorandum is not a substantive rule setting forth a new standard, but instead a policy statement or interpretive rule that clarifies the common law background of the Regulation's control test. Defendants therefore argue that Plaintiffs' Complaint is a broad programmatic challenge to one of its general policies-namely, the agency's internal guidelines for determining an employer-employee relationship for the H-1B program-which is not entitled to judicial review under § 702 of the APA. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the APA in Counts I and III-V because the Memorandum does not constitute final agency action subject to judicial review under § 704 and notice and comment rulemaking under § 553. See Defs.' Opp'n at 13-26. Finally, Defendants argue that Count II fails to state a claim because the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to guidance documents or interpretive statements such as the Memorandum. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(a), 604(a).

II. Standard of Review

The first requirement for judicial review under the APA is that the complaint must challenge "agency action." 5 U.S.C. § 702 ("A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof."); Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 890, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990); Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081, 1095 (D.C.Cir.2001). Programmatic challenges lacking "some concrete action applying the regulation to the claimant's situation in a fashion that harms or threatens to harm him" do not qualify as agency action, and so are not "ripe" for judicial review under the APA. Lujan, 497 U.S. at 891, 110 S.Ct. 3177.

Second, the challenged agency action must be "final." 5 U.S.C. § 704 (authorizing judicial review under APA of "[a]gency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court"); Lujan, 497 U.S. at 882, 110 S.Ct. 3177. Final agency action "must generally 'mark the consummation of the agency's decisionmaking process' and either determine 'rights or obligations' or result in 'legal consequences.' " Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 452 F.3d 798, 800 (D.C.Cir.2006) (quoting Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 178, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997)) (emphasis in original). Legislative or substantive rules are, by definition, final agency action, while interpretive rules and general policy statements are not. Id. at 805-07.

Notice and comment procedures are only required under APA § 533 for legislative rules with the force and effect of law; "interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization procedure, or practice" are exempted. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A); see also Nat'l Ass'n of Broadcasters v. FCC, 569 F.3d 416, 425-26 (D.C.Cir.2009). Finally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, only applies when an agency is required to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking. 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(a), 604(a).

III. Analysis

First, the parties dispute whether USCIS's issuance of the Neufeld Memorandum constitutes agency action. Defendants argue that it is not, and that Plaintiffs' action is a non-justiciable programmatic challenge to USCIS's administration of the H-B1 visa program.

In RCM Technologies, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Homeland Security, 614 F.Supp.2d 39 (D.D.C.2009), this District Court considered whether a group of employment recruiters could challenge...