Hosp. Bus. Servs. v. Jaddou
| Decision Date | 20 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civ. Action 19-0198 (EGS) |
| Parties | HOSPITAL BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. Plaintiff, v. UR M. JADDOU, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, [1] Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Hospital Business Services, Inc. (“HBSI”), a holding company of Prime Healthcare Services, a hospital chain with approximately 40, 000 employees nationwide, sought to hire eight foreign-born nationals in the United States as “Application Analysts.” See Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. (“Pl.'s MSJ”), ECF No. 18-1 at 10.[2] Plaintiff challenges the denial of six of the eight petitions by Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS” or the “Agency”). See id. at 12. USCIS based its denials on the determination that the proffered positions do not require a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, and therefore do not meet the “specialty occupation” bar for H1-B visas set out in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). See Def.'s Mem. Supp. Cross-Mot. Summ. J. & Opp'n (“Def.'s XMSJ”), ECF No. 19-1 at 6. HBSI alleges that USCIS's denials of the petitions are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. See Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 18-1 at 12. Pending before the Court are HBSI's motion for summary judgment ECF No. 18-1; and USCIS's cross motion, ECF No. 19-1. Upon consideration of the motions, responses, and the replies thereto, the applicable law and regulations, the entire record and the materials cited therein, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART HBSI's motion for summary judgment and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART USCIS's cross motion for summary judgment.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) permits employers to temporarily employ foreign, nonimmigrant workers in specialty occupations through the H-1B visa program. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H). To obtain a visa, an employer first submits to the Department of Labor (“DOL”) a Labor Condition Application (“LCA”), which identifies the specialty occupation at issue and certifies that the company will comply with the requirements of the H-1B program. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1). Once the DOL has certified the LCA, the employer submits it to USCIS, along with a Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (“Form I-129” or “petition”) on behalf of the alien worker, showing that the proffered position satisfies the statutory and regulatory requirements. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B).
In line with the statutory definition in 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1), the USCIS regulation defines a specialty occupation as one that “requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty” or its equivalent, in addition to “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.” 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). USCIS's implementing regulations set forth four criteria, of which at least one must be satisfied, to determine whether a profession is a “specialty occupation.” An occupation qualifies if:
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1)-(4). USCIS determines whether a position qualifies as a specialty occupation, see 20 C.F.R. § 655.715; and the petitioner bears the burden of proving that the proffered position falls within one of the four categories, see 8 U.S.C. § 1361.
To aid USCIS adjudicators in understanding job duties and classifications, USCIS accepts “relevant documentation from an authoritative career resource, which lists the duties, work, environment, education, training, skills, and other qualification requirements for the occupation.” Administrative Record (“AR”), ECF No. 23-11 at 25. One such resource that USCIS “routinely consults” is the U.S. Department of Labor's (“DOL”) Occupational Outlook Handbook (“Handbook”) for “information about the educational requirements of particular occupations.” Id. A second authoritative source is the DOL's O*Net Standard Occupational Classification (“O*Net Report”). Def.'s XMSJ, ECF No. 19-1 at 23. The O*Net Report is “the nation's primary source for occupational information.” RELX, Inc. v. Baran, 397 F.Supp.3d 41, 54 (D.D.C. 2019).
HBSI provides Information Technology (“IT”) services such as hospital billing, cash posting, collecting, and business function services to over forty hospitals and medical centers across eleven states. See Def.'s Stmt. of Material Facts (“Def.'s SMF”), ECF No. 19-2 ¶ 1. All these hospitals and medical centers, including HBSI itself, are owned by Prime Healthcare Services (“Prime”). Id. To meet Prime's IT needs, HBSI employs Application Analysts, whose job duties include, among other things, maintaining system utilization files, assisting computer programmers in resolution of work problems, logging and maintaining records of system performance, developing new systems or procedures to improve production workflow, interacting with vendors, and reporting software problems. Id. ¶ 2; see also e.g., AR, ECF No. 23-11 at 37-40.
On April 2, 2018, HBSI filed petitions with USCIS, seeking to secure each petition beneficiary's H-1B status beginning September 1, 2018. Def.'s SMF, ECF No. 19-2 ¶ 4. Each individual had recently received a Master of Computer Science degree from a U.S. University, see, e.g., AR, ECF No. 23-1 at 108-117; and was offered the position of Applicant Analyst at a wage of $25.11 per hour. Def.'s SMF, ECF No. 19-2 ¶ 3, 4.
For each petition, HBSI provided: (1) an LCA, see AR, ECF No. 23-2 at 2-7; (2) a letter from Prime's President of Operations with background information on HBSI, the job duties of Application Analysts, and the suitability of each beneficiary for the position, see Id. at 9-12; (3) copies of the beneficiaries' respective Master's degrees and official transcripts, see, e.g., id. at 50-59; (4) a copy of their F-1 student visas and work authorizations, see, e.g., id. at 35-48; and (5) a copy of the biographic page of their unexpired passports, see, e.g., id. at 32-24.
In October 2018, USCIS issued a “Request For Evidence” (“RFE”) seeking additional information regarding whether the Application Analyst position qualified as a specialty occupation, and for three of the petitions, additional evidence establishing the employer-employee relationship. See Def.'s SMF, ECF No. 19-2 ¶ 6. In the RFE, USCIS identified the deficiencies in the petitions and provided detailed guidance on the types of evidence that would be probative. Id. ¶ 7-12.
Six of the petitions were reviewed at USCIS's California Service Center and each was denied because HBSI had failed to demonstrate that the proffered position was a specialty occupation.[3] See AR, ECF No. 23-1 at 5-12 (WAC 0003) (denial of petition for Suhasini Rajulapudi); AR, ECF No. 23-3 at 5-13 (WAC 1540)(denial of petition for Raghavendra Cheni); AR, ECF No. 235 at 177-185 (WAC 1719) (denial of petition for Reshma Vemula); AR, ECF No. 23-7 at 3-8 (WAC 1166) (denial of petition for Arpit Pandya) AR, ECF No. 23-9 at 5-13 (WAC 1947) (); ECF No. 23-11 at 12-20 (WAC 0365)(denial of petition for Mihir Patel).[4] Two of the petitions were reviewed at the Vermont Service Center and approved. See AR, ECF No. 23-4 at 8-9 (); AR, ECF No. 23-4 at 10-11 ().
HBSI subsequently filed its Complaint in this Court on January 28, 2019. See ECF No. 1. On October 7, 2019, HBSI moved for summary judgment, seeking an order from this Court directing USCIS to grant the six H1-B petitions. See Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 18-1. USCIS opposed and filed a cross motion for summary judgment on November 6, 2019. See Def.'s XMSJ, ECF No. 19-1. HBSI filed an opposition to the cross motion shortly thereafter. See Pl.'s Mem. Opp. Def.'s Cross Mot. for Summary Judgment (“Pl.'s Opp'n”), ECF No. 21. USCIS replied on December 4, 2019. See Def.'s Reply, ECF No. 22. The cross motions are ripe and ready for the Court's adjudication.
Summary judgment is ordinarily warranted when “the pleadings the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits [or declarations] show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Air Transp. Ass'n of Am. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 719 F.Supp.2d 26, 31-32 (D.D.C. 2010) (alteration in original) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)), aff'd, 663 F.3d 476 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). However, this standard does not apply in cases, such as this one, involving review of agency action under the APA “because of the limited role of a court in reviewing the administrative record.” Ctr. for Food Safety v. Salazar, 898 F.Supp.2d 130, 138 (D.D.C. 2012). “[T]he...
To continue reading
Request your trial