Vision Builders, LLC v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
| Decision Date | 05 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 19-3159 (TJK) |
| Parties | VISION BUILDERS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Vision Builders is a design services firm seeking to hire a Vice President of Strategic Planning from outside the United States on an H-1B visa. By statute, such visas are reserved for "specialty occupations," which require "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)." 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1). USCIS found that Vision Builders had not shown that the proposed role is a specialty occupation and denied the petition for an H-1B visa, so Vision Builders sued under the Administrative Procedure Act. Vision Builders now moves for summary judgment, arguing that USCIS misinterpreted the regulatory standard for specialty occupations and abused its discretion in finding that Vision Builders did not meet its burden. USCIS cross-moved for summary judgment, maintaining that the statutory text compels its interpretation of the specialty-occupation regulation and that it reasonably found that Vision Builders had not shown that its VP role requires a specialized bachelor's or its equivalent related to the position. For the reasons explained below, USCIS did not err in rejecting the H-1B petition, and the Court will grant it summary judgment.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) permits employers to petition for "H-1B" nonimmigrant visas on behalf of alien beneficiaries. 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(1). To obtain an H-1B visa, the employer bears the burden of showing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which "makes the determination under the INA on whether to grant visa petitions," 20 C.F.R. § 655.715, that the proposed role is a "specialty occupation" and that the beneficiary meets the role's requirements, see 8 U.S.C. § 1361.1 "[T]he term 'specialty occupation' means an occupation that requires—(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and (B) 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).
The applicable regulation, expanding on that language, further states that a specialty occupation requires (A) "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 (B) "the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). The position must also satisfy one of these criteria:
Id. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A); see also Taylor Made Software, Inc. v. Cuccinelli, 453 F. Supp. 3d 237, 240-41 (D.D.C. 2020).
Vision Builders "is a multifaceted foodservice design company" in North Carolina with 17 full-time employees, around $3 million in annual revenue, and hundreds of clients nationwide in the business, travel, healthcare, education, and restaurant sectors. AR 62.2 In April 2019, Vision Builders filed a Form I-129 Petition for a specialty-occupation H-1B visa with USCIS to fill its proposed role, "Vice President of Strategic Planning." See AR 2, 38-51; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(h)(i)(b). The petition included a certified Labor Condition Application (LCA), AR 55-60, letter from Vision Builders describing the duties of the proposed role, AR 61-64, and extensive information on Philip Potgieter, the South African beneficiary hired for the role, see AR 67-95. According to the letter, the Vice President of Strategic Planning—which is akin to a "General and Operations Manager[]" (Standard Occupational Classification Code 11-1021) under the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH or"O*NET")—requires "a minimum of a U.S. Bachelor's degree in Business Administration, or a closely related field" and one "year of professional experience in the construction industry." AR 62-63; see Compl. ¶ 62.
USCIS found those materials insufficient to meet the criteria for a "specialty occupation," and it issued a request for evidence (RFE) in June 2019. AR 142-59. In response, Vision Builders provided more information responsive to the issue, see AR 170, including (1) a letter from a university professor AR 177; (2) a more detailed description of the Vice President of Strategic Planning's job duties and the corresponding "specialized knowledge one must possess in order to perform" those duties, including: "Contract Negotiations," "Project Management," "Project Scheduling," "Program Management," "Strategic Planning," "Business Communications," "Financial and Managerial Accounting," "Managerial Finance," "Construction Management," "Human Resource Management," and "Principles of Marketing," AR 199-203; (3) a copy of "CareerOneStop's report for 'General and Operations Managers,'" AR 205; (4) the summary report for O*Net's "General and Operations Managers" listing, AR 132-41; and (5) four sample job postings of other organizations' roles that Vision Builders contends are much like its Vice President of Strategic Planning, AR 220-29. Vision Builders' RFE response concluded that "a bachelor's level education in Business Administration, or the equivalent professional employment experience of at least 12 years, plus a minimum of one-year full-time professional experience in business management for the construction industry, is required for [the] Vice President of Strategic Planning position." AR 198.
After considering that additional evidence, USCIS found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Vision Builders' petition met none of the specialty-occupation criteria and denied the petition for an H-1B visa in September 2019. AR 2-12. Vision Builders' sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge that decision, and the parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a court must grant summary judgment if the movant can show "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [he] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In the APA context, however, courts play a more limited role, sitting "as an appellate tribunal," Am. Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 269 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2001), and look at whether the administrative record supports the agency's action as a matter of law, Schmidt v. Spencer, 319 F. Supp. 3d 386, 391 (D.D.C. 2018). "The entire case on review is a question of law, and the complaint, properly read, actually presents no factual allegations, but rather only arguments about the legal conclusion to be drawn about the agency action." Rempfer v. Sharfstein, 583 F.3d 860, 865 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Marshall Cty. Health Care Auth. v. Shalala, 988 F.2d 1221, 1226 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). And summary judgment "serves as the mechanism for deciding, as a matter of law, whether the agency action is supported by the administrative record and otherwise consistent with the APA standard of review." Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. SEC, 916 F. Supp. 2d 141, 145 (D.D.C. 2013) (citing Richards v. INS, 554 F.2d 1173, 1177 & n.28 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). In making that determination, a court is generally limited to the record before the agency when it made its decision. See CTS Corp. v. EPA, 759 F.3d 52, 64 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
Vision Builders brings its APA claim under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), which provides that a court must "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to bearbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." In applying that standard, the key question is whether the agency's decision was "the product of reasoned decisionmaking." Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 52 (1983). The standard "entails a 'very deferential scope of review' that forbids a court from 'substitut[ing] its judgment for that of the agency,'" and thus the plaintiff's burden to make such a showing is a "heavy" one. Van Hollen, Jr. v. FEC, 811 F.3d 486, 495 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting Transmission Access Pol'y Study Grp. v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667, 714 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). "Nevertheless, the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a 'rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.'" Motor Vehicle, 463 U.S. at 43 (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). "Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider,...
To continue reading
Request your trial