INTERNATIONAL INTERNSHIPS PROGRAMS v. Napolitano
798 F. Supp. 2d 92
D.D.C.2011Background
- IIP is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that runs a culturally oriented internship program for nonresident aliens and obtains Q-1 visas for participants.
- USCIS Vermont Service Center denied 11 Q-1 visa petitions in Nov. 2010, citing failure to prove adequate wages/working conditions.
- IIP argues the program meets the regulatory work component requiring wages comparable to local domestic workers and a structured cultural component.
- Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to compel visa consideration or approval, arguing the denial was not supported by substantial evidence.
- The court denied the motion for preliminary injunctive relief after reviewing pleadings, supplemental submissions, and the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USCIS's denial of Q-1 petitions was permissible | IIP contends denial lacked substantial evidence. | USCIS's interpretation/regulation is reasonable under Chevron. | Permissible agency construction; no likelihood of success on merits. |
| Whether IIP shows irreparable harm absent injunctive relief | Denials cause ongoing and future irreparable harm to program and participants. | No imminent, substantiated irreparable harm; evidence is lacking. | Insufficient showing of irreparable harm. |
| Whether injunction would adversely affect other interested parties | Only affected parties are temporary participants and hosts. | Public interest and congressional authority would be harmed by intrusion into visa process. | Injunction would harm the United States and contravene federal authority. |
| Whether the injunction would further the public interest | Injunction would serve the public by ensuring program viability. | Injunction would subvert Congress's control over alien admission and wage requirements. | Public interest would not be promoted by issuing an injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smoking Everywhere, Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 680 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.D.C. 2010) (establishes four-factor framework for preliminary injunctions)
- County of Los Angeles v. Shalala, 192 F.3d 1005 (D.C.Cir. 1999) (remand is the proper remedy for agency legal error)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunctions require irreparable harm and balance of equities)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (agency deference when statute is ambiguous)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (substantial evidence standard for agency findings)
- Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (U.S. 1972) (broad discretion over immigration decisions)