UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F I L E D FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MAR 20 2019 ABHISHEK FAMANLAL RAVAL, efal.» ) c‘f,'$'§f"¢;?ih‘l‘%‘i";¥§.§§?%t'.t?.§§¥a Plaintiffs, § v. § Civil Case No. 17-2358 (RJL) UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND § IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., ) Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION (March Q, 2019) [D_kt. # 10] In 2001, KPS Investment Company (“KPS”), a business owned by Pete Patel (“Patel”), sought authorization for Abhishek Ramanlal Raval (“Raval”) to work for KPS in the United States. KPS filed a labor certification with the United States Department of Labor and an l-l40 visa petition with the United States Citizenship and lmmigration Service (“USCIS”), listing Raval as the beneficiary of both. The requested work authorization was initially granted. But in 2004, USCIS invalidated KPS’s labor certification and revoked its l-l4() petition due in part to a finding that Raval had willfully misrepresented his work experience on KPS’s applications The decision left Raval ineligible for permanent residency in the United States, which he had been seeking at the time his work authorization was revoked. KPS, Patel, and Raval (collectively, “plaintiffs”) filed this lawsuit against nine governmental entities and officials1 to challenge USCIS’s decision, alleging that it was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. The Government responded with a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the motion is now pending before me. Upon consideration of the pleadings and the relevant law, the Government’s motion must be GRANTED. BACKGROUND Raval is an alien seeking legal authorization to work and permanently reside in the United States through a three-step process administered by the Department of Labor and USCIS. The process begins when a United States employer names an available alien worker for an open and advertised position and asks the Secretary of Labor to certify that (l) 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)). Ifthe Department ofLabor issues a “labor certification” in response, the employer “may file with USCIS a Form l-l40 Immigrant Worker Visa Petition” that attaches the certification Ia’. (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(C) l The defendants named in the complaint are the United States of America; William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General; Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and lmmigration Services; L. Francis Cissna, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. Citizenship and lmmigration Services’ Texas Service Center; Gregory A. Richardson, Director, U.S. Citizenship and lmmigration Services’ Texas Service Center; U.S. Citizenship and lmmigration Services’ Administrative Appeals Office; and Barbara Q. Velarde, Chief`, U.S. Citizenship and lmmigration Services’ Administrative Appeals Office (collectively, “the Government” or “defendants”). All individual defendants are being sued in their official capacities, and several individual defendants have been substituted for ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals