557 F.Supp.3d 1144
D. Colo.2021Background
- Direxa Engineering filed an I-140 petition for Alexandre Bourgoin (French national) as a multinational manager, describing his prior role in Australia ("Project Manager") and current U.S. role ("Assistant Technical Manager").
- USCIS issued an RFE seeking detailed daily tasks, time allocations, an organizational chart, and names/titles of subordinate staff for both the Australian and U.S. positions because Direxa’s descriptions were viewed as broad.
- Direxa responded with a supplemental submission (DRRFE) reiterating managerial responsibilities (budget, schedule, hiring recommendations, contract drafting, supplier relations) but did not provide the requested task-by-task detail and percentages.
- USCIS denied the I-140, concluding Direxa failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Bourgoin had served at least one year in a managerial capacity abroad and that the submitted duties were too generalized to establish managerial status.
- Direxa sued under the Administrative Procedure Act; both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted defendants’ motion and denied Direxa’s, finding the denial was not arbitrary or capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior L-1A approvals bind USCIS in I-140 adjudication | Prior USCIS/State Dept. approvals of Bourgoin’s L-1A status show he is a manager and preclude denial | Prior approvals—if erroneous—do not bind USCIS; petitioner bears burden to prove eligibility for I-140 | Court: Prior L-1A approvals do not bind USCIS; petitioner must independently meet I-140 burden |
| Whether State Department visa approvals constitute independent validation of managerial status | State Dept. approval of L-1A visas validated managerial status and should have been dispositive | State Dept. interviews verify facts but do not re-adjudicate USCIS determinations or independently validate managerial capacity | Court: State Dept. approvals are not independent validation; USCIS’s failure to treat them as dispositive was not arbitrary |
| Whether CBP admissions on L-1A entries require deference in I-140 decisions | Repeated CBP admissions reaffirm Bourgoin’s managerial classification and should control | CBP admission for entry does not amount to re-adjudication of immigration classification for I-140 purposes | Court: CBP admissions do not control I-140 adjudication; no authority requires USCIS to be bound by them |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to show managerial capacity (abroad and U.S.) | Direxa submitted extensive documentation and met the preponderance standard; descriptions mirror regulatory factors | Descriptions were generalized; USCIS reasonably requested task-level detail, time allocations, and subordinate lists to assess true nature of duties | Court: USCIS reasonably concluded Direxa failed to prove Bourgoin’s managerial capacity abroad; denial was not arbitrary or capricious |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahalaxmi Amba Jewelers v. Johnson, [citation="652 F. App'x 612"] (10th Cir. 2016) (agency need not be bound by prior L-1A approvals when petitioner fails to demonstrate eligibility for I-140)
- Zzyym v. Pompeo, 958 F.3d 1014 (10th Cir. 2020) (court may uphold agency action when at least one independent reason is valid)
- Saga Overseas, LLC v. Johnson, 200 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (general job descriptions insufficient to establish managerial duties)
- Omni Packaging, Inc. v. U.S.I.N.S., 733 F. Supp. 500 (D.P.R. 1990) (consideration of prior admissions in a different visa context; not controlling here)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standards and burdens of proof)