NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GB INTERNATIONAL, INC.; et al., No. 19-35866 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00227-RAJ v. KRISTINE R. CRANDALL, Acting MEMORANDUM* Director of Nebraska Service Center; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 2, 2021 Seattle, Washington Before: RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and MOSKOWITZ,** District Judge. GB International, Inc. (GBI), Dong C. Park, Hyojin Kim, and Y-P- appeal the district court’s order denying Appellants’ challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. decision denying GBI’s I-140 Petition for Alien Worker as a “multinational executive” and Park, Kim, and Y-P-s’ derivative I-485 Adjustment of Status applications. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court. We review de novo a district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Boardman v. Inslee, 978 F.3d 1092, 1103 (9th Cir. 2020). “This court also reviews de novo the district court’s evaluations of an agency’s actions.” San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971, 991 (9th Cir. 2014). Under the APA, we must set aside agency action “found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). “An action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.’” Innova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 983 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 658 (2007)). “To survive a challenge, the agency must articulate ‘a satisfactory explanation’ for its action, ‘including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Id. (quoting Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, --- U.S. ----, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2569 (2019)). USCIS’s denial was not arbitrary and capricious for its purported failure to consider Junseo Pak’s declaration. USCIS adequately addressed the relevant substance 2 of the Pak declaration. USCIS’s reasons for rejecting Park’s executive function claim, specifically its consideration of Dasom Kim’s job duties, demonstrates that USCIS considered the Pak declaration. USCIS’s discounting of the expert opinion letters was supported by substantial evidence except for one reason asserted. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and will not disturb those findings “unless the evidence presented would compel a reasonable finder of fact to reach a contrary result.” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals