20-780 Controlled Air, Inc. v. Barr 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 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 22nd day of October, two thousand twenty. Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________________________ CONTROLLED AIR, INC., KRISHNENDU MUKHERJEE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 20-780-cv WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, LAURA B. ZUCHOWSKI, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES-VERMONT SERVICE CENTER, Defendants-Appellees. 1 _____________________________________________________ Appearing for Appellant: Glenn L. Formica, New Haven, CT. Appearing for Appellee: Joshua S. Press, Trial Attorney, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (Jeffrey Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Director, Aaron S. Goldsmith, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), Washington, DC. 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as above. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.). ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. Controlled Air, Inc. and Krishnendu Mukerjee (collectively, “Controlled Air”) appeal from the March 3, 2020 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.) dismissing their complaint challenging a denial by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) of a nonimmigrant highly skilled work visa under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) (“H-1B visa”) for failure to state a cause of action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review. Controlled Air provides heating and cooling services. Krishnendu Mukherjee is a citizen of India and a prospective employee of Controlled Air, who at the time of the district court’s decision, was in the United States on a student visa and in a training program at Controlled Air, which sought an H-1B visa for him to work after his training. USCIS denied Controlled Air’s application for an H-1B visa for Mukherjee because the application listed a start date of employment that fell withing the prior fiscal year for which visas had already been awarded. Controlled Air sued, alleging that USCIS erred because the start date had to correspond to the date on the Labor Condition Application (“LCA”) that Controlled Air had previously filed with the Department of Labor. Controlled Air argued ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals