Def endants orig inally

included Micha el Ay

tes, Deputy

Direc tor o f USCI S and F. Ge rar d 1 He ina ue r, Ac tin g Di re c tor

of the USC I S Ne br a sk a

Se rv ic e Ce nte r. Pur su ant t o F e de ra l Ru le of Civ il Pr oc e dure 25 (d )( 1) , th e ne w U SCI S Di re c tor , A le jand ro Ma y or ka s, is s ub sti tut e d f

or Mr . A y te s. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) IQ SYS TEMS, INC. , ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-890 (RM C) ) ALEJANDRO MAY ORKA S , Di r e c to r , U .S. Ci ti z e nshi p and Im m igration Service s, et al ., ) ) ) ) De fend ant s. )

1 )

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION I Q Sy st em s, I nc. complains that the U .S. Ci tiz enship and Immigration Service (“ USC I S” ), a

n a g e n c y wi thi n th e De pa

rtme nt o f H ome land

Se c ur ity , im

pr op e rl y de nie d it s I -1 40 vis a petition on be half of intended benef iciary Ravi Kuma Akuthota. USCI S moves to dism iss for lack of jurisdiction and fa ilure to state a c laim. Be cause USCI S’s de nial of the visa petition was base d on a question of law

and not on the exercise of discretion, this Court has jurisdiction to review the denial pursua

nt to feder al question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the Adminis trative Proce dure Act (“ APA”), 5 U .S.C. §§ 701-706. However , beca u s e the Complaint fails to state a claim that USCI S’s decision was a

rbitrar y or ca pricious, the motion to dism iss will be gr anted. I. F AC TS An alien c annot work i n t h e United States without the appr opriate a uthority from USCI S. One way f

o r ana li e nto r e c e iv e p e r

mi s s io nto w o r

k is f o r ane mp lo y e r

to s u b mi t a F o rmAn alien with an I -140 visa ca n petition for adjustment of his status to th at o f permanent 2 resident, throug h For

m I -485. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255. -2- ETA-750 A

pplication for Alien E mploy ment with the Depa

rtment of L abor. The a

pplication names

an ava ila ble a lie n w or

ke r f or an o pe n a

nd a dv e rt ise d p os iti on

and a sk s th e Se c re tary

of L a bor t o

c e rt if y that ( 1) the e mpl oy e r atte mpt e d to re c ru it U.S . wor ke rs in g oo d fa ith ; (2) no U. S. w or ke r i s qu a lif ie d, a ble , wi lli ng , or a va ila

ble fo r su c h e mpl oy

me nt; and (3 ) e mpl oyingthe a lie n w or ke r w ill not adver sely

aff ect U.S. wa g es or wor

king c onditions. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (5); 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(a) & ( c). I f the Sec reta

ry g rants the labor

cer tificat i o n , the Secr etar

y returns the orig inal cer

tified application to the employ er. 20 C.F.R. § 656.24(d). Onc e an e mploy er ha s rec eived a n approve d

or ig ina l la bo r c e rt if ic a tio n, the e mpl oy e r m ay fi le wi th U SCI S a F or m I -1 40 I mmi g ra

nt Wo rk e r V isa Pe tit ion ; th e e mpl oy er mu st sub mit the la bo r c e rt if ic a tio n w iththe I -1 40 Pe tit ion . 8 C.F .R. § 204.5( l )( 3) (i ); se e als o 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)( C) (an immigra nt visa may not be issued until the consular of

fice r re ceive s the labor c ertification). The I -140 Pet i t ion must describe the spe cial tr a ini ngor

ta le nt o f t he sp e c if ic a lie n f or wh om t he a pp lic a tio n is mad e and the pa uc ity of a va ila ble simil ar worker s in the Unit ed States. See 8 U .S. C. § § 1 15 3( b) (2 ) & (3 ); id

. § 11 54 (a )( 1) (F ); 8 C. F .R. § 2 04 .5 . U

po n a pp ro va l of

an I -1 40 Pe tit ion , th e name d a lie n r e c e ive s a vis a wh ic h a llo ws him

to work for the named e mploy er. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(n). 2 I Q Sy s te ms , I n c . ( “ I Q Sy s te ms ” ) is a c o mp u te r

c o n s u lt in g c o mp an y

th a t f il e d an application for labor cer

tification for the position of Software Eng ineer , naming as the prospe ctive alien wor ker Ravi Kuma

r Akuthota. The Secre tary of L abor c ertified the position a nd issued the l ab or ce rtification on Apr il 12, 2007. See Co mp l. , E x. 2 ( 4 /1 2 /0 7 L a b o r Ce rti f

ic a ti o n f o r Mr. Akuthota). On Ma

y 3, 2007, I Q Sy stems filed a F orm I -140 visa petition on behalf of anothe rTw o y e ars late r, USC I S a c kn ow le dg e d th e wi thd ra wa l of the I -1 40 pe tit ion

fo r M r . Ko ta g ir i. 3 See Compl., Ex . 4 (Jan. 21, 2009 L etter)

. -3- ind ivi du a l, R a vi K anth

Ko ta g ir i, usi ng the la

bo r ce rt if ic a tio n f or Mr . A ku tho ta

in a c c or da

nc e wi th then-a pplicable r egulations. Those prior re g ulations permitted an employ er to “substitute,” i.e. , to

use an approve d labor c ertifica tion for a different prospec tive alien worke r than the individual named in the I -140 application. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(c) (2) ( version ef fec tive Mar. 28, 2005 to July 15, 2007). Subsequ en t l y , the Secr etar y of L abor pr omulgated a ne w re g ulation prohibiting the substitut ion of aliens in any visa reque st submit ted on J uly 16, 2007 or there afte r. See 7 2 Fe d

. R eg. 27904, 27944 (May

17, 2007) (a dding 20 C.F .R. § 656.11). On Au g us t 15 , 2 00 7, I Q Sy ste ms fil e d a n I -1 40 vis a

pe tit ion wi th U SCI S on

be ha lf of Mr. Akuthota. I Q Sy stems indicated that it intende d to “ withdraw the I -140 petition f iled in (sic) behalf of R avi Kanth Kotag iri (substituted alien beneficia ry ) and respec tfully

[sought] permission 3 to reuse this appr oved labor [certification] in (sic) behalf of the orig inal alien Mr. Akuthota.” See C o mp l

. , E x . 3 ( A u g . 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 Le t t e r S u p p o rt i n g V i s a

P e t i t i o nf o r M r . A k u t h o t a )

. U S C IS d e n i e d

IQ Sy stems’ I -140 visa petitio n , b ecause the pe tition was filed afte r Jul y 16, 2007, and a substitution of the intende d alien bene ficiar y was prohibited. See id

. , E x . 1 ( F e b

. 1 9 , 2 0 0 9 D e c i s i o n ) a t2

. IQ Sy stems reque sted rec onsideration. USCI S de nied rec onsideration, noting that the re -substituti on of the or ig ina l a lie n w a s fi le d on e mon th a ft e r t he ne w r e g ulatio n p ro hib iti ngsu bs tit uti on too k e ff e c t. Se e id ., Ex . 5 (Mar . 24, 2009 Dec ision).

I Q Sy stems contends that USCI S’s de nial of the I -140 visa petition wa s arbitra ry and capr icious beca

use I Q s hould have been able t o use the orig inal labor c ertification (for Mr. A kuthota) in suppor t of the Aug ust 2007 I -140 visa petition on behalf of Mr. Akuthota — despi t e the-4-

su bs tit uti on in t he int e ri m of

Mr . K ota g ir i. II. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Mot ion to Dism iss f

or Lack of Ju risdiction When review ing a

motion to di smiss for lack of jur isdiction under Fe dera l Rule of Civil Pr o ce d u re 12(b)(1) , a cour t must review the c omplaint liberally , g rantingthe plaintiff the benef it of all infere nces that c an be derive d from the f acts a lleg ed. Barr v. Clinton , 370 F. 3d 1196, 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004). To dete rmine whe ther it has jurisdiction over the claim, a c ourt may consider mat er i al s outside the pleading s. Settles v. U.S. ParoleComm’n , 429 F.3d 1098, 1107 ( D.C. Cir. 20 05 ). No a c tio n o f t

he pa rt ie s c an c on fe r s ubjec t mat ter ju ri sd ic tio n o n a fe de ra l c ourt

be c a us e subject matter jur isdiction is a constitut ional and st atut ory require ment. Akinsey e v. D istrict of Colum bia , 339 F.3d 970, 971 ( D.C. Cir. 2003). The party claiming subject matter jur isdiction bears the burde n of demonstrating that such jurisdiction exi sts. Khadr v. United States , 529 F.3d 1112, 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

B. M ot ion to Di sm iss for F ail ur e to St at e a C lai m A motion to dis miss pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 6) cha lleng es the a de qu a c y

of a c omp la int

on its fa c e , te sti ngwh e the r a pla int if f h a s p ro pe rl y st ate d a

c la im. Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 8(a ) re quires that a c omplaint contain “a shor t and plain statement of the c la im s ho wi ngthat th e ple a de r is e nti tle d to r e lie f. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 8 (a ). A c omp la int mus t be suff icient “to g ive a de fenda

nt fair noti ce of what the . . . c laim is and the g rounds upon which it rests.” Be ll A tl. Cor

p. v . Two mb ly , 550 U. S

. 5 4 4, 555 (2007) ( internal c itations omi tted). Although a

complaint does not nee d detailed f actua l alleg ations, a plaintiff’s oblig ation to provide the g ro un ds of

his e nti tle me nt to re lie f “ re qu ir e s mor e tha n la be ls a nd c on c lus ion s, and

a fo rm ula ic-5-

rec itation of the elements of a cause of ac tion will not do.” Id. T h e f ac t s al l ege d

“m u s tb e e n o u gh to raise a rig ht to relief a

bove the spe culative leve l.” Id

. Rule 8(a) require s an ac tual showing and not just a blanket asser

tion of a rig ht to relief. Id. a t 55 5 n. 3. “ [A] com pl ain t n eed s some information about the circumstance s g iving r ise to the claims.” Aktieselsk abet Af 21. Nov. 2001 v. Fame J eans, Inc

. , 525 F.3d 8, 16 n.4 ( D.C. Cir. 2008) (empha sis in original). I n d e c idi nga mot ion un de r Rule 12 (b )( 6) , a cou rt may c on sid e r t

he fa c ts a lle g e d in the complaint, documents attached to the c omplaint as exhi bits or incorporated by ref ere nce, a nd mat t er s ab out which the cour t may take judicial notice

. Abhe &Svoboda, Inc . v. Chao , 508 F.3d 1052, 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2007). To survive a motion to dismiss , a complaint must contain sufficient fac tual matter, a cce pted as true , to state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its fac e.” Twom bly , 55 0 U. S. a t 57 0. Whe n a

pla int if f p le a ds fa c tua l c on te nt t

hat a llo ws the c ourt

to d ra w the re a so na

ble infere nce that the defe ndant i s l i able for the misconduct a lleg ed, then the c laim has fac ial plausibilit y . Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 1 29 S. Ct. 193 7, 19 49 (2 00 9)

. “ Th e pla us ibi lity sta nd ard is n ot a kin to a ‘proba

bility require ment,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibili ty that a def endant ha s acte d unlawfully .” Id

. III . A NA LY SIS

A. Jur isdi c ti on. De fe nd ants argue tha

t th is C ourt

la c ks jurisd ict io n to re vie w U SCI S’ s d e c isi on to deny the visa petition under the jur isdiction-stripping statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2)( B) , which pr ov ide s: [N] o court shall have jurisdiction to review — . . . (ii) a ny other decision or a ction of the Attorne y Gen er al or the Sec reta ry of Ho me land

Se c ur ity the a uth or ity fo r whic h is sp e c if

ie d und e r t

hisTh is “ su bc ha pte r” inc lud e s th e dis c re tio na ry po we rs of

the USC I S se t f

or th i n 8 U. S.C. 4 §§ 1151 throug h 1155 relating to the issuanc e and pr ocessingof immigra nt visa petitions. -6- subchapte r to be in the discre tion of the Atto rn ey Ge n eral or the

4 Secre tary of Homela

nd Security

. . . . 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2)( B) (ii). I n other words, courts lack jurisdiction to review de cisions reg arding

v i s a p e t i t i o n s w h e nt h e d e c i s i o nw a s d i s c r e t i o n ar y. Even so, cour

ts have jurisdiction to revie w d ec i sions on visa petitions when the decisi o n i s b ased on a question of law. A lthough the D .C. Circuit has y et to decide the question, oth e r fe de ra l c ourt s of a

pp e a l ha ve he ld t hat § 1 25 2( a )( 2) (B ) d oe s n ot s tr ip c ourt s o f j ur isd ic tio n to revie w nondiscre tionary

decisions re g ardingvisa petitions and adjustment of s tatus petitions. See e.g., Sepulv eda v. G onzales , 4 0 7 F. 3 d 5 9 , 62-63 (2d Cir. 2005) ( § 1252(a) (2)( B) does not bar jur isd ic tio n o ve r n on dis c re tio na ry le g a l de c isi on s) ; see also, e.g. , Su c c ar v . A sh c ro ft , 394 F.3d 8, 19 (1st Cir. 2005) (“B oth the Supreme Court and this court have c onsistently reje cted a

rg uments that Con g re ss h a s e lim inate d ju dic ia l r e vie w o f t he le g a l qu e sti on

of int e rp retati on of th e statut e a s to wh e the r an a lie n is elig ibl e fo r co ns ide ra tio n o f r e lie f. ” ); Id

dir v . I NS , 301 F.3d 492, 497 ( 7th Cir. 20 02 ) ( “ we fi nd

se c tio n 1 25 2( a )( 2) (B )( i)

. . . on ly bars re vie w o f a c tua l di sc re tio na ry de c isi on s to g rant or de ny

relief ”). F eder al cour

ts have jurisdiction to review a “pr edicate l ega l question that amounts to a nondiscre tionary deter mination underlying the denial of r elief.” El-Baz Abdelwahab

v . F r azier , 578 F.3d 817, 821 ( 8th Cir. 2009). Thus, the jurisdiction-stripping statute doe s not deprive the Court of jurisdiction to review USCI S’s decision because the visa denial was based on US C I S ’s p re d i ca t e l ega l co n cl u s i o n t h at t h e ne w re gu l at i o n b arre d I Q S y s t em s fr o m s u

b s t i tu t i n g a benef iciary . Final a g ency

action such a s USCI S’s decision is subject to ju d i ci al re v i ew unde r the APAwh e n t her e is n o o the r a de qu a te re me dy and fe de ra l qu e sti on

jur isd ic tio n und e r 2 8 U .S. C.A final a g ency action “( 1) m ar k s t h e consummation of the ag ency ’s dec ision making 5 proce ss — it mus t not be of a mere ly tentative or interlocutory nature ; a nd (2) the a ction must be one by which rig hts or obligations have bee n deter mined or from which leg al conse quence s will flow.” Domestic Se cs., Inc . v. SEC , 333 F.3d. 239, 246 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). -7- § 1331 applies. Se e Cal ifa no v . S an de rs , 430 U.S. 99, 107 (1977). B. USCIS’s Denial of

the I-140 Visa P etition The APA p ro v i d es a cause of action to a “ person suff

eringleg al wrongbeca

use of ag ency action, or a dverse ly

aff ecte d or agg rieve d by ag ency action.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Review unde r the APAis l imi te d to “ fi na l a g e nc y a c tio n” fo r wh ic h th e re is n o o the r a de qu a te re me dy in a c ourt

. 5 Id

. § 7 04 ; Hec kler v . Chaney , 470 U.S. 821, 828 (1985) ( a per son adver sely aff ecte d by final ag ency action is entitled to judicial review so long a s no statute prec l u d es re v i ew and the ac tion is not committed to ag ency

discretion by

law). T h e A P A r e qu i r e s a

r e v i e w i n g c o u rt t o s e t a s i d e an a g e n c y a c t i o n t h a t i s “ ar b i t r ar y, capr icious, an abuse of discre tion, or otherwise not in acc ordanc e with l aw.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ; Tourus Records, Inc. v . DEA , 259 F.3d 731, 736 ( D.C. Cir. 2001). I n making this inqui ry , the revie wing court “ must consider whe ther the [ag ency ’s] decision was based on a consideration of the rele vant fa ctors and w hether there has bee n a cle ar e rror of judg ment.” M

a r s h v . O r e g o n Na tu r al Re s. Cou nc il , 490 U.S. 360, 378 (1989) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). At a minimum, the ag ency must have consider ed re levant data and ar ticulated an e x planation establishing a “r ational

connec tion between the fac ts found and the choice made .” Bowen v. Am . Hosp. Ass’n , 476 U.S. 610, 626 (1986). An a g ency

action may

be ar bitrary or ca pricious if: the a g e nc y

ha s rel ied on f

a c tor s whic h Co ng re ss h a s n ot i nte nd e d it to c o n s id e r , e n ti r e ly f

a il e d to c o n s id e r an im

p o rta n t a s p e c t of the pr ob le m, o ff

e re d a n expla natio n f or its de c isi on

that r un s c ounte r t o the evidenc e before the ag ency , or i s so implausible that it could not-8- be asc ribed to a diff

ere nce in view or t he product of ag ency expertise. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). “[T]he scope of re vie w und e r the ‘a

rb itr ary and c a

pr ic iou s’ sta

nd ard is narr ow and a c ourt is not to s ub sti tut e its judgme nt for that of the ag ency .” Id

.

Under prior re g ulations, an employ er submit ting an I -140 visa petition for a named worke r wa s permitted to use an a pproved la

bor ce rtification that had be en is s u ed for a different prospec tive alien wor

ker. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(c) (2) (ver sion e ffe ctive Mar. 28, 2005 to July 15, 20 07 ). Sub se qu e ntl y , a

ne w r e g ulatio n w a s pr omu lg a te d that pr oh ibi ts the su bs tit uti on of a lie ns in any visa reque sts submi tted afte r Jul y 16, 2007. See 72 Fe d. Reg

. 27904, 27944 (M ay 1 7 , 2 007) (a dd ing20 C.F .R. § 6 56 .1 1) . T he ne w r e g ulatio n p ro vid e s:

(a ) Su b s ti tuti o n o r c h an g e to th e id e n ti ty o f an a li e n b e n e f ic ia r y on any application for

perma nent labor cer

tification, whethe r filed unde r this part or 20 C.F.R. part 656 in eff ect prior to March 28, 2005, a nd on any re su lti ngc e rt if

ic a tio n, is p ro hib ite d f

or any re qu e st t o substitut e submitted after J uly 16, 2007. (b) Reque sts for modifications to a n application will not be acc epted for a pplications submitt ed af

ter July 16, 2007. 20 C.F.R. § 656.11. Fur

ther, § 656.30(c )(2) was amended to provide : A p e rm an e nt l

ab or c e rti fic ati on inv olv ing a sp e c ifi c job off e r is v ali d only for the par ticular job opportunity , the alien named on the or igi na l ap

pli c ati on (

un le ss a su bs tituti on was ap

pr ov e d pr ior to J uly 16, 2007) , and the a

rea of i n t en d ed employ

ment stated on the Application for Alien Employ ment Certification ( For

m E TA 750) or the Ap p l i ca t i o nfo r P erm an en tE mp l o y m en tC er t i fi ca t i o n(F o rm E TA 9089). 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(c) (2) ( eff ective July

16, 2007) (e mphasis added)

. I Q Sy stem argues that it “withdrew ” the I -140 application on be half of Mr. Kota g iri-9-

an d r e a s o n s th a t th is w it h dr aw a l s o me h o w nu ll if

ie d th e p r io r s u

b s ti tuti o n o f M r . K o ta g iri and

re ins ta te d M r. Ak

uth ota wi th r e g ard to the la

bo r c e rt if ic a tio n. USC I S r e c og nize d th a t I Q Sy ste ms in fac t was asking for a second substitut ion — to ha ve Mr. Akuthota r eplac e Mr. Kota g iri. I t denied the Aug ust 2007 I -140 visa petition for Mr. A kuthota beca use substituti ons were no longe r per mitted

a ft e r t he ne w r e g ulatio ns too k e ff e c t on July 16 , 2 00 7. Th e Se c re tary c on sid e re d th e re le va

nt d a ta and ar ticulated an e x planation establishing a “r ational conne ction betwee n the fa cts found and the choice made.” Bowen , 476 U.S. at 626. Acco rd i ng ly , even a cce pting the f acts a lleg ed in the Complaint and its ex hibits as true, see Abhe , 508 F.3d at 1059, the v i s a p et i t i on denial wa s not arbitra ry , capr icious, or otherw ise in violation of the law. IV . C ON CL USI ON For the re asons stated ab o v e, De fenda nts’ motion to di smiss [ Dkt. # 5] wil l be g rante d and this case will be dismiss ed. A memor ializi ng Orde r ac comp an i es this Memorandum Opinion.

Date : N ov e mbe r 4 , 2 00 9 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER Un i t edS t at es Di s t ri ct J u d ge