Sikh Cultural Soc’y v. USCIS

17-1700-cv Sikh Cultural Soc’y v. USCIS 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 26th day of April, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. THE SIKH CULTURAL SOCIETY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, 17-1700-cv v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee. FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: MICHAEL E. PISTON, New York, NY. 1 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: ELLIOT M. SCHACHNER, Assistant United States Attorney (Varuni Nelson, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Bridget M. Rohde, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY. Appeal from an April 1, 2017 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Roslynn R. Mauskopf, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the District Court’s April 1, 2017 judgment be AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant The Sikh Cultural Society, Inc. (“SCS”) appeals the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), which found that SCS’s 2009 petition for a special immigrant religious worker visa for Birender Singh, as provided for in 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(4), was properly denied. USCIS denied that petition in 2010, and SCS appealed. USCIS’s Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) dismissed SCS’s appeal in 2012 because of discrepancies or inadequate evidence as to Singh’s compensation, housing, and employment history; because SCS had not provided all of the requested information; and because SCS had not shown that Singh had worked continuously for the two years leading up to the petition, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(C). After the AAO had dismissed SCS’s appeal, SCS filed in 2012–14 several motions for reconsideration of the decision or reopening of the proceedings. The AAO dismissed the motions for reconsideration, granted the motions to reopen, and reaffirmed the visa denial, noting that old discrepancies had not been resolved and that new submissions by SCS had introduced additional discrepancies. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the remaining procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. “On appeal from a grant of summary judgment involving a claim brought under the Administrative Procedure Act [(“APA”)], we review the administrative record de novo without according deference to the decision of the district court.” Karpova ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals