19-1499 Saraswat v. Jayaraman UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 1st day of April, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________ AJAY SARASWAT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 19-1499 SELVA JAYARAMAN, BUSINESS INTEGRA, INC., PRATIBHA RAMDOSS, JAGAN PARATHASARATHY, Defendants-Appellees. * _________________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Michael James Confusione, Hegge & Confusione, LLC, Mullica Hill, NJ. * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as above. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Patrick Papalia, Bruce Gorman, Jr., Archer & Greiner, P.C., New York, NY. Appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Chen, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on April 26, 2019, is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant Ajay Saraswat (“Saraswat”) appeals from the judgment of the District Court (Chen, J.) granting the motion of Defendants-Appellees Business Integra, Inc. (“BI”), Selva Jayaraman, Pratibha Ramdoss, and Jagan Parathasarathy (together, “Defendants”) for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Jayaraman, Ramdoss, and Parathasarathy were, during the relevant times, employees of BI, a corporation headquartered in Greenbelt, Maryland. In March 2007, when Saraswat, an Indian national resident in New York, was a student at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute in Brooklyn, New York, Defendants offered Saraswat employment at BI. Saraswat entered into two separate contracts with BI. The first arrangement proposed, prior to BI obtaining an H-1B visa on behalf of Saraswat, was that Saraswat would work as a consultant for other companies and keep 70% of his billings, paying a 30% margin to BI. The objective for Saraswat was legal work in the United States, and for BI, financial gain. Saraswat signed BI’s offer letter. Defendants then sponsored Saraswat in an application for an H-1B visa, an immigration status available to certain skilled foreign nationals. While the H-1B visa application was pending, Defendants provided Saraswat with consulting job opportunities and asked Saraswat to apply for those positions. The record includes no evidence that Saraswat did so. After their H-1B application on his behalf was approved by the government in September 2007, Defendants offered Saraswat a salaried position with BI. Saraswat accepted this offer in October 2007. The record contains no evidence, however, that Saraswat ever ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals