UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ARISTEIDIS POLYZOPOULOS, et al., Plaintiffs v. Civil Action No. 20-0804 (CKK) MERRICK GARLAND, et al., Defendants MEMORANDUM OPINION (April 14, 2021) In 2019, Colonial Marble determined that it would like to hire Mr. Aristeidis Polyzopoulos, a foreign national residing in Greece. To secure employment authorization for Mr. Polyzopoulos, Colonial Marble filed an I-140 petition on his behalf with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). After USCIS initially approved the I-140 petition, Mr. Polyzopoulos appeared for a consular interview at the United States Embassy in Athens, Greece. A consular officer with the State Department, however, denied Mr. Polyzopoulos’s application for an immigrant visa, and, shortly thereafter, USCIS revoked its original approval of Colonial Marble’s I-140 petition on behalf of Mr. Polyzopoulos. In response, Colonial Marble and Mr. Polyzopoulos (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have now filed a civil action against the United States Attorney General, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Acting Director of USCIS, the Secretary of State, and the U.S. Consul General of the U.S. Embassy in Athens (collectively, “Defendants”), to challenge (1) USCIS’s I- 140 petition revocation and (2) the State Department’s denial of Mr. Polyzopoulos’s visa application. Now pending before the Court, is Defendants’ [16] Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Upon 1 consideration of the briefing, the relevant authorities, and the record as a whole, 1 the Court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion and DISMISS Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint in its entirety. I. BACKGROUND A. Statutory Framework This case involves Plaintiffs’ attempt to secure employment authorization for Mr. Polyzopoulos, a foreign national from Greece. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10–34. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., companies attempting to permanently employ alien workers must generally follow a three-step process. See Raval v. USCIS, 369 F. Supp. 3d 205, 208 (D.D.C. 2019). First, the American employer must identify the alien worker as eligible “for an open and advertised position,” and then “ask[] the Secretary of Labor to certify that (1) the employer attempted to recruit U.S. workers in good faith; (2) no U.S. worker is qualified, able, willing, or available for such employment; and (3) employing the alien worker will not adversely affect U.S. wages or working conditions.” IQ Sys., Inc. v. Mayorkas, 667 F.Supp.2d 105, 107 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5) and 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(a) & (c)). Second, “[o]nce the [labor] certification is obtained, the employer must [then] submit the certification along with an I-140 visa petition to [] USCIS on behalf of the non-citizen worker, who is known as the ‘beneficiary’ to the petition.” Vemuri v. Napolitano, 845 F. Supp. 2d 125, 127 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(l)(1)). In support of its I-140 petition, the employer must demonstrate that the beneficiary meets the requisite job requirements and that the employer can 1 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following briefing and material submitted by …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals