UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 19-3620 (RDM) v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Open Society brings this action to challenge a determination by the United States Customs and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) that Open Society did not qualify for an exemption from the otherwise applicable annual quota on H-1B visas. Dkt. 11. That exemption applies to “nonprofit research organizations,” 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(5)(B), defined under the relevant regulations as a nonprofit “that is primarily engaged in basic research and/or applied research,” 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C). Open Society maintains that on over a dozen prior occasions USCIS found that Open Society satisfied this standard but that in 2020 the agency reversed course without sufficient explanation or sound reason. Dkt. 11 at 3–4 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9–10); Dkt. 41-7 at 14 (CAR 789). USCIS’s decision at issue in this case, according to Open Society, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., for three reasons: (1) the decision rests on a misinterpretation of the agency’s own regulations; (2) even accepting that interpretation, the administrative record does not support the agency’s determination; and (3) the 1 agency failed adequately to explain the change in its position with respect to Open Society’s status as a “nonprofit research organization.” Dkt. 11 at 4–5 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11–15). USCIS now moves for summary judgment, Dkt. 23, and Open Society responds with its own cross- motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 29. Open Society also moves for leave to supplement the administrative record with evidence relating to USCIS’s adjudication of the prior petitions for cap-exempt H-1B visas, which, Open Society argues, supports its APA claim in this case. Dkt. 30. As explained below, the Court is unpersuaded by Open Society’s arguments. The Court, accordingly, will GRANT USCIS’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 23, and will DENY Open Society’s cross-motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 29, and motion to supplement the administrative record, Dkt. 30. I. BACKGROUND A. Statutory and Regulatory Background The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., “govern[s] temporary work authorization” for noncitizens seeking to work in the United States. Overdevest Nurseries, L.P. v. Walsh, 2 F.4th 977, 980 (D.C. Cir. 2021). At issue in this case is a specific kind of temporary work authorization, “the H-1B visa program, which allows American companies to employ aliens in certain ‘specialty occupations.’” Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Lab., 159 F.3d 597, 598 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(1)(ii)(B). The INA “permits employers to petition for ‘H-1B’ nonimmigrant visas on behalf of” noncitizen beneficiaries. Vision Builders, LLC v. USCIS, No. 19-CV-3159, 2020 WL 5891546, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2020). “To obtain an H-1B visa, the employer bears the burden of showing 2 [USCIS], which ‘makes the determination under the INA on whether to grant visa petitions,’ that the proposed role is a ‘specialty occupation’ and that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals