Parcha v. Cuccinelli, 4:20-cv-00015

Background:

Venkata Parcha (beneficiary) came to the U.S. on L‑1B; Unified Systems filed an H‑1B petition for him (approved 2012); later his employer bank filed and USCIS approved an I‑140 (immigrant petition).
Owners of Unified Systems (Raju Kosuri et al.) were indicted for a large H‑1B visa‑fraud scheme; Kosuri pleaded guilty and admitted that many H‑1B petitions filed by his shell companies (including Unified Systems) were fraudulent.
USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) for Parcha’s 2012 H‑1B petition, later revoked the petition (revocation finalized Dec. 18, 2019), and Parcha lost employment and work authorization.
Parcha and his family sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging arbitrary-and-capricious revocation and unreasonable delay in adjudicating a pending H‑1B petition; they moved for a temporary restraining order / preliminary injunction to delay the revocation’s legal effect and compel adjudication.
The court held it had Article III and statutory jurisdiction to hear the claims, rejected the government’s regulatory‑standing argument, but denied the requested preliminary injunction because Plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing	Parcha (and dependents) suffered concrete economic injuries from revocation and nonadjudication	Beneficiaries lack a legally protected interest in petition decisions (8 C.F.R. §103.3 excluded beneficiaries)	Plaintiffs have Article III standing; the regulation affects statutory remedies (zone‑of‑interests), not constitutional standing
Whether §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips jurisdiction	Parcha: APA review available for unreasonable delay and revocation	Gov’t: INA discretion bars judicial review of immigration adjudications	§1184 is reasonably read to permit judicial review; no clear and convincing evidence to displace presumption of review; court retains jurisdiction
Timeliness of NOIR (28 U.S.C. §2462)	NOIR was issued >5 years after approval; §2462 statute of limitations bars revocation	Revocation authority and regulation allow revocation at any time; §2462 inapplicable because revocation is remedial, not punitive	§2462 does not apply; USCIS may issue NOIR/revoke without five‑year limitation
Scope of revocation authority and sufficiency of factual basis	Revocation must be based on beneficiary’s fraud; NOIR/revocation here cites petitioner’s fraud and generalized allegations, so deficient	Statute broadly authorizes revocation when a visa was ‘‘issued by fraud’’; fraud by petitioner suffices; NOIR/revocation provided adequate factual summary and analysis	USCIS lawfully revoked based on fraud in the petition (petitioner’s conduct suffices); NOIR and revocation contained sufficient factual basis and explanation
Unreasonable‑delay claim (compel adjudication)	Failure to adjudicate pending H‑1B for over a year is unreasonable per APA and agency timetables (8 U.S.C. §1571(b))	USCIS constrained by an injunction agreed to in parallel litigation (Sakthivel); that agreement limited USCIS options and explains delay	Court declines to find unreasonable delay given injunction’s constraints and Plaintiffs’ litigation strategy; no likelihood of success on this claim

Key Cases Cited

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (courts must resolve jurisdictional questions before merits)
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) (presumption of judicial review and interpretation of §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii))
Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014) (zone‑of‑interests test is statutory, not Article III)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (injury‑in‑fact requirements for standing)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (standards for preliminary injunctions involving the government; merging of balance‑of‑hardships and public interest)
Tex. Med. Providers Performing Abortion Servs. v. Lakey, 667 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2012) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary remedy)
Associated Builders & Contractors of Tex., Inc. v. NLRB, 826 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2016) (arbitrary‑and‑capricious review standards)
Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (six‑factor test for unreasonable agency delay)