Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00943/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00943-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 08:1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRISH HELP AT HOME LLC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROSEMARY MELVILLE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00943-MEJ 

ORDER IN PREPARATION FOR 

HEARING ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 28. 29

On January 22, 2015, the Court will hear the parties’ arguments on their cross-motions for 

summary judgment. Dkt. Nos. 28 & 29. The parties should come prepared to discuss and present 

authority in support of their positions related to the following topics:

1) Whether the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) considered the 

letter from the California Association for Health Services at Home, stating that “it is a 

general prerequisite, that a position of this kind [the deputy controller position] be filled 

with a possessor of a four year Bachelor’s degree in Financing.” Admin. R. 322. If not, 

what is the impact of USCIS’s failure to consider this evidence?

2) Whether the submission of the beneficiary’s academic records was mandatory under 

8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv), and whether Plaintiffs’ failure to submit those records 

necessarily requires the denial of their petition. 

3) Whether 5 U.S.C. § 704 or another authority permits the Court to review USCIS’s 

procedural actions, including its choice to not to issue a Request for Evidence of the 

Case 3:13-cv-00943-MEJ Document 34 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

beneficiary’s academic records.

4) Whether the document “SUBJECT: Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny, 

2013 WL 2729808,” a June 3, 2013 USCIS Policy Memorandum, provides any authority

in interpreting 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 

5) Whether the Court may remand this matter to USCIS for consideration of evidentiary 

issues or other matters.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00943-MEJ Document 34 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 2