Raj & Co. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5157
W.D. Wash.2015Background
- Raj & Company, a 10-person Yakima, WA business, filed an H-1B petition for Rashna Kajal to serve as Marketing Analyst & Specialist to support expansion, seeking a three-year term.
- USCIS denied the petition on October 27, 2012, solely on the ground that the proffered position did not qualify as a specialty occupation under FAA/INA definitions.
- Plaintiff sued under the APA, seeking judicial review and reversal of the denial; both sides moved for summary judgment without oral argument.
- The core dispute is whether the proffered Market Research Analyst position satisfies the regulatory criteria for a specialty occupation, particularly the first criterion requiring a bachelor’s degree or equivalent as a minimum for entry.
- The court reviews the administrative record de novo for law and substantial evidence, applying a highly deferential standard to agency fact-finding but ensuring rational connections and not merely arbitrary denial.
- The court reverses the USCIS denial, finding the agency abused discretion by narrowly interpreting the first criterion and ignoring evidence showing the position requires a specialized degree in market research or equivalent coursework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Market Research Analyst satisfies the first criterion. | Raj shows the position requires a specialized degree in market research. | USCIS reads the OOH and requires a specific tailored degree; generalized degrees are insufficient. | Yes; court finds first criterion met; USCIS abused discretion. |
| Whether USCIS properly applied the regulatory framework in denying the petition. | Agency failed to articulate a satisfactory explanation; misapplied the regulation. | Agency acted within discretion by applying standard criteria; denial supported by record. | Abuse of discretion; denial reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (market research analyst qualifies under the first criterion (specialized degree or equivalent))
- Kazarian v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency error must be rationally connected to the record; substantial deference to agency findings)
- Caremax, Inc. v. Holder, 40 F. Supp. 3d 1182 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (summary judgment in APA challenge; substantive scientific/occupational determinations reviewed via substantial evidence)
- Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139 (1st Cir. 2007) (emphasizes that the burden rests with petitioner to show occupation meets specialty criteria)
- Tapis International v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) (recognizes that the specialized degree may be equivalent even if no tailored degree exists)