Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05346/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05346-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Decor Team LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Kevin K McAleenan, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-05346-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Additional Discovery 

(Doc. 27). Defendants filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 33). No Reply was filed. For 

reasons that follow the Motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Décor Team, LLC and Shai Avisira filed a Complaint for Declaratory 

Relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), challenging the United States 

Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (“USCIS”) denial of their Immigrant Petition for 

Alien Worker (“I-140 petition”). (Doc. 1.) In the I-140 petition, Décor Team, on Mr. 

Avisira’s behalf, applied to have Mr. Avisira classified as an employment-based immigrant

under section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. (Doc. 20 at 2.) Filing 

an I-140 petition is a preliminary step in obtaining an EB-1C immigrant visa (permanent

residence or “green card” visa), which may be issued to “[c]ertain multinational executives 

and managers” who serve “in a capacity that is managerial or executive.” (Doc. 1 at 2, ¶ 2);

(Doc. 33 at 12.)

Case 2:19-cv-05346-MTL Document 37 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Prior to and after the filing of the I-140 petition, Mr. Avisira sought and obtained 

numerous L-1A visas (temporary non-immigrant status), the most recent of which expires 

on May 8, 2020. (Doc. 1 at 2-3, ¶¶ 3, 4, 23); (Doc. 28 at 7, ¶ 9.) An L-1A visa may be

issued to “an alien who within the preceding three years has been employed abroad for one 

continuous year by a qualifying organization” and who will be employed by that employer 

in the United States “in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 

knowledge . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l). 

On July 30, 2019, USCIS denied Plaintiffs’ I-140 petition because it found that 

Plaintiffs failed to establish that the position here and the position abroad qualified as 

managerial and/or executive positions. (Doc. 33 at 12) (citing CAR at 1-10.) Plaintiffs 

allege in the Complaint that the denial of Mr. Avisira’s I-140 petition was arbitrary, 

capricious, or an abuse of discretion because USCIS previously granted him temporary L1A visas, which have the same “managerial and executive capacity” criterion as the I-140 

classification. (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 50.) 

Defendants filed the certified administrative record (“CAR”) in this Court on 

February 21, 2020. (Docs. 20-26.) After receiving the record, Plaintiffs moved to compel 

discovery of the previously filed and approved L-1A petitions. (Doc. 27.) Plaintiffs argue 

that the L-1A petitions are part of the administrative record and should therefore be 

produced by Defendants. (Doc. 27 at 2.) Plaintiffs alternatively urge the Court to compel 

additional discovery beyond the administrative record. (Id. at 3.) Defendants respond that 

the L-1A petitions are not part of the administrative record because USCIS did not rely on 

them when it denied Mr. Avisira’s I-140 petition. (Doc. 33 at 6.) Defendants additionally 

argue that Plaintiffs have not carried the heavy burden to show that the L-1A petitions are 

necessary for the Court to adequately address the agency’s final decision. (Doc. 33 at 11.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Generally, judicial review of agency action is confined to the administrative record. 

Animal Defense Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir. 1988). A party wishing 

to conduct discovery or add to the administrative record must overcome the presumption 

Case 2:19-cv-05346-MTL Document 37 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that the agency properly designated the record. McCrary v. Gutierrez, 495 F. Supp. 2d 

1038, 1041 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (citing Bar MK Ranches v. Yuetter, 994 F.2d 735, 740 (10th 

Cir. 1993)). The Ninth Circuit has established four narrow exceptions to the general rule 

that discovery and expansion of judicial review are not generally permitted in APA 

proceedings. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. United Sates Forest Service, 

100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1996). The expansion of judicial review and discovery may 

be allowed where: (1) it is necessary to determine whether the agency has considered all 

relevant factors and has explained its decision, (2) when the agency has relied on 

documents not in the record, (3) where it is necessary to explain technical terms or complex 

subject matter, or (4) when plaintiffs make a showing of bad faith by the agency. Id.

(internal citations and quotations omitted). Whether limited discovery should be permitted 

under the APA is a separate question from whether the administrative record should be 

expanded to include documents produced in discovery. See Public Power Council v. 

Johnson, 674 F.2d 791, 794-95 (9th Cir. 1982). But the same four exceptions apply to 

both. Animal Defense Council, 840 F.2d at 1438 (addressing certain circumstances that 

may justify expanding review beyond the record or permitting discovery). 

III. DISCUSSION

The only exception to the rule raised by Plaintiffs is the second. They argue that the 

L-1A applications are part of the administrative record because they were either directly or 

indirectly considered by USCIS when it denied their I-140 petition. (Doc. 27 at 5); (Doc. 

33 at 11.) Plaintiffs claim, without citation to the record, that USCIS “must have” 

considered the L-1A applications because Plaintiffs referenced them in their response to 

the Defendants’ Request for Evidence. (Doc. 27 at 5.) As Defendants point out, however, 

the agency decision makes no reference to the L-1A applications or the materials submitted 

in furtherance thereof. (CAR at 1-11.) Plaintiffs’ passing reference to the L-1A 

applications in their I-140 petition (see CAR at 672-74) does not mean that USCIS 

considered them when it denied the petition, particularly since the agency denied the I-140 

petition in spite of the L-1A approvals. Because the agency action must be upheld, if at 

Case 2:19-cv-05346-MTL Document 37 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

all, based on the basis articulated by the agency, see Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. 

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 50 (1983)—and because there is no evidence 

that the agency considered the L-1A applications and approvals—Plaintiffs’ request to 

supplement the administrative record is denied. 

Turning to Plaintiffs’ alternate request for discovery, Plaintiffs do not explain why 

they no longer possess their own prior L-1A applications and approvals.

1

 Nor do they 

argue that discovery is appropriate under any of the other three exceptions articulated by 

the Ninth Circuit. Because the Court does not agree that USCIS relied on the L-1A 

applications and approvals when it denied Plaintiffs’ I-140 petition, discovery on that basis 

is not appropriate. Plaintiffs’ request for discovery is denied. 

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ request to supplement the administrative 

record (part of Doc. 27).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ request for discovery (part of 

Doc. 27).

Dated this 23rd day of March, 2020.

1 Plaintiffs admit that they previously filed a Complaint in this district, challenging the 

denial of his most recent L-1A application. (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 4.)

Case 2:19-cv-05346-MTL Document 37 Filed 03/23/20 Page 4 of 4