Sagarwala v. Cissna
387 F. Supp. 3d 56
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Usha Sagarwala (Indian citizen) sought an H-1B petition via HSK Technologies to work as a QA Analyst on-site for Anthem (subcontracting arrangement). USCIS denied the petition.
- HSK submitted an LCA, Form I-129, job description (one-page, bullet list), job postings, two industry letters, an expert report, and client/subcontractor verification documents. USCIS issued an RFE; HSK amended its description and clarified degree requirement after the RFE.
- USCIS denied the petition solely on the ground that the QA Analyst position did not qualify as a "specialty occupation," focusing on 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)’s four-prong test and also noting HSK’s initial broad listing of acceptable degrees.
- Sagarwala sued under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking judicial review; cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The court reviews under the APA’s highly deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard.
- The agency found HSK’s evidence insufficient for each of the four regulatory prongs: (1) degree normally required in a specific specialty; (2) degree common in industry or position uniquely complex; (3) employer normally requires a degree; (4) duties are specialized/complex. The district court affirmed USCIS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USCIS applied an unlawful "single-degree" rule requiring one specific degree | Sagarwala: USCIS impermissibly demands a single specific degree; multiple related degrees should suffice | USCIS: does not prohibit multiple related degrees but requires petitioners to tie listed degrees to the job duties | Court: did not need to resolve the dispute; even if single-degree argument valid, alternative regulatory grounds supported denial |
| Whether USCIS reasonably concluded a specific-specialty degree is normally required (§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1)) | Sagarwala: O*NET and expert report show bachelor’s normally required; agency misread regulation | USCIS: O*NET does not show a specific-specialty requirement; expert report was uncorroborated/conclusory | Held: USCIS’s interpretation and evidence weighting were reasonable and entitled to deference; not arbitrary or capricious |
| Whether HSK proved industry commonality or unique complexity (A)(2) | Sagarwala: job postings and letters show industry requires specialized degrees; employer best positioned to assess complexity | USCIS: job postings show mixed practices; letters are unsupported; HSK’s job duties were vague/jargon-heavy and not shown uniquely complex | Held: USCIS reasonably concluded degree in specific specialty is not common and duties were not shown uniquely complex |
| Whether employer normally requires a degree or duties are specialized/complex (A)(3) & (A)(4)) | Sagarwala: employer’s stated requirement and duties should suffice; agency lacks technical expertise | USCIS: employer’s assertions need corroboration; duties lacked sufficient detail to show complexity | Held: USCIS permissibly required substantiation; HSK provided insufficient evidence; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard requires rational connection between facts and agency decision)
- Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) (deference to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous rules under defined conditions)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (agency interpretation of its own regulation may merit deference)
- Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2000) (discusses § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) as necessary condition for specialty occupation)
- Fogo De Chao (Holdings) v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 769 F.3d 1127 (2014) (if any independent ground supports agency action, court will affirm)
- Coburn v. McHugh, 679 F.3d 924 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (agency decision need not be a model of analytic precision)
- BDPCS, Inc. v. FCC, 351 F.3d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (upholding agency action based on any valid independent ground)