UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VENKATESH THIAGARAJAN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 19-cv-1116 (RDM) 1 MARK KOUMANS, Acting Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Venkatesh Thiagarajan, a citizen of India, brings this suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., challenging the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (“USCIS”) decision to deny his application for an adjustment of his immigration status in order to become a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Dkt. 1. USCIS denied that application and Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of that denial on the ground that he had failed to show, as is required by statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(3), that an immigrant visa was immediately available to him. Rather, according the USCIS, the evidence showed that both he and his wife were born in India, and thus his visa was chargeable to India— and no visa for an Indian national was available to him at that time. CAR 105–07 (denial of original application); CAR 48–50 (denial of first motion for reconsideration). 1 Acting Director Koumans was automatically substituted for Francis Cissna as the Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). Because the office of Director is currently vacant, no further substitution is available. Plaintiff challenges those denials as arbitrary and capricious in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). He contends that a visa was immediately available to him via his wife because, he contends, she falls under a narrow regulatory exception for individuals who are born in in foreign state to parents who were not born in that foreign state and who were stationed there for work at the time of the individual’s birth. 22 C.F.R. § 42.12(e); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1152(b) (permitting an applicant to charge his or her visa to the country to which his or her spouse’s visa would be charged). The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment on this question and, for the following reasons, the Court will GRANT Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 11, and will DENY Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 10. I. BACKGROUND A. Statutory Background Plaintiff was sponsored by his employer, Cognizant Technology Solutions US Corporation (“Cognizant”), for a green card. CAR 444–57. That process consists of three steps. First, the employer must apply for and receive a certification from the Department of Labor that there are no qualified, able, and willing U.S. workers to fill the job opportunity that the company is offering to the alien worker. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5). Second, the employer must file with USCIS the approved labor certification along with an I-140 petition, which requires the employer to demonstrate that the prospective immigrant visa-holder meets the job requirements contained in the labor certification and that the company can afford to pay the worker the specified wage. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(F); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(a). Finally, the applicant himself must apply for and be granted an adjustment of status to permanent ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals