Congregation of the Passion v. Johnson, 79 F. Supp. 3d 855

Plaintiff Congregation of the Passion and Rev. Alfredo Ocampo sued USCIS and DHS after USCIS denied an I-360 petition classifying Ocampo as a special immigrant religious worker.
Ocampo, a Mexican national present in the U.S. since 1994, was unlawfully present after his B-2 visa expired; he seeks adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
The Passionists filed an I-360 in 2012 so Ocampo could obtain a visa "immediately available" as a special immigrant religious worker and thereby pursue adjustment under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i).
USCIS denied the I-360 based on 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(m)(4) and (m)(11), which require prior qualifying religious work performed in the U.S. to have been authorized under U.S. immigration law.
Plaintiffs challenged the regulations and the denial under the APA (and also raised RFRA/constitutional claims), seeking rescission of the denial and a grant of the I-360.
The district court reviewed the regulatory interpretation under Chevron and granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, finding the cited regulations ultra vires and ordering USCIS to rescind its denial and grant the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1101(a)(27)(C) requires that qualifying prior religious work performed in the U.S. be done with immigration work authorization	The statute's plain text requires only continuous two years of qualifying work; it does not condition eligibility on lawful work authorization	USCIS regulations reasonably interpret statute to require U.S. work be authorized; regs entitled to Chevron deference	Court held statute unambiguous; no authorization requirement; regs ultra vires and invalid
Whether USCIS denial of I-360 (based on those regs) was lawful	Denial wrongful because it relied on ultra vires regs	Denial lawful because regs valid interpretations of statute	Denial contrary to law; grant plaintiffs' summary judgment on APA claim
Scope of Chevron deference here	Plaintiffs: plain statutory text controls at Chevron step one; no deference	Defendants: regs interpret gaps/ambiguities; Chevron permits deference	Court found no statutory ambiguity; Chevron step one resolves in plaintiffs' favor; no deference to regs
Jurisdiction/standing to review I-360 denial	Plaintiffs: courts may review denials of I-360; Ocampo is adversely affected and has standing under APA	Defendants argued lack of standing for Ocampo and limited reviewability of discretionary immigration decisions	Court found jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and APA §702; Ocampo has standing; denials of I-360 reviewable because approvals are mandatory when statutory requirements met

Samirah v. Holder, 627 F.3d 652 (7th Cir.) (describing adjustment-of-status assimilation to entry applicant)
Palmer v. INS, 4 F.3d 482 (7th Cir.) (same principle on adjustment of status)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (Sup. Ct.) (agency deference framework)
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (Sup. Ct.) (limits on agency interpretations inconsistent with statutory structure)
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (Sup. Ct.) (text and context in statutory interpretation)
Castellon-Contreras v. INS, 45 F.3d 149 (7th Cir.) (plain statutory language as indicator of intent)
Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (Sup. Ct.) (reliance on plain text when no modifier present)
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (Sup. Ct.) (no implied limitation where statute contains none)
Ogbolumani v. Napolitano, 557 F.3d 729 (7th Cir.) (reviewability of certain visa-petition denials)
Soltane v. United States Dep't of Justice, 381 F.3d 143 (3d Cir.) (mandatory nature of petition approval when statutory requirements met)