Ravulapalli v. Napolitano
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32967
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Ravulapalli filed I-485 applications based on an approved I-140 petition later withdrawn by the employer.
- USCIS denied the I-485s in March 2009 on the ground that the underlying I-140 had been withdrawn.
- The withdrawal occurred after the I-485 applications had been pending for 180 days, raising the AC21 portability issue.
- Plaintiffs allege that AC21’s Portability Provision required USCIS to determine whether the I-140 was approvable and, if so, to approve the adjustment applications.
- Defendants relied on their interpretations and guidance memoranda (2001–2005) governing I-140 validity and portability, prior to concurrent filing changes.
- Plaintiffs sue under APA, Mandamus, and Fifth Amendment theories, seeking review, re-opening of I-485, and declaratory relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AC21 § 1154(j) requires validity of an withdrawn unadjudicated I-140 | Ravulapalli argues I-140 remains valid for porting if unadjudicated 180 days. | Napolitano argues only approved I-140 petitions remain valid for porting. | Portability preserves validity only for approved I-140 petitions. |
| Whether USCIS acted arbitrarily by misapplying policy guidelines on I-140/I-485 | Plaintiffs contend USCIS departed from its own policies without adequate explanation. | Defendants contend their actions followed established policy guidance. | Plaintiffs state a claim that the agency acted arbitrarily or capriciously. |
| Whether USCIS changes in interpretive rules require notice and comment under the APA | Plaintiffs assert departure from interpretive guidance constitutes a rule change needing notice and comment. | Defendants classify the guidance as interpretive rules not requiring notice. | Court denies dismissal on this point and will reconsider in summary judgment; uncertainty remains. |
| Whether Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim survives | Distinction between I-140s that are approved versus withdrawn lacks rational basis. | Defendants argue there is a rational basis for the treatment and no constitutional violation. | Court grants dismissal of the equal protection claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- FCC v. Beach Commc'ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1993) (rational-basis review in policy contexts)
- Transp. Workers Union of Am., AFL-CIO v. Transp. Security Admin., 492 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (notice and comment requirements for significant interpretive changes)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 626 F.3d 84 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (agency action must be not arbitrary and capricious)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plaintiff must plead plausible claims, not mere conclusory allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)