Sunil Kumar Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24141
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Worldwide completed the first two steps for Kurapati's employment-based immigration and he ported to a new employer while applications were pending.
- USCIS issued notices of intent to revoke the I-140 petitions based on Worldwide's alleged misstatement; Worldwide ceased to exist, so only Kurapati responded.
- USCIS revoked the I-140 petitions and denied adjustment of status for Kurapati and Mallidi; AAO later found lack of standing under its regulations.
- The district court dismissed the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing, relying on 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B).
- Kurapati and Mallidi argued USCIS failed to follow its own procedures and that the district court had jurisdiction to review that procedural compliance.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that Kurapati falls within the zone of interests and that the district court retains jurisdiction to review compliance with internal procedures and regulatory rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plaintiff has standing to challenge revocation | Kurapati and Mallidi claim constitutional standing and that they were injured by revocation. | USCIS argues lack of standing because beneficiary lacks standing to challenge petitions under regulations. | Kurapati has standing to challenge revocation under constitutional and zone-of-interests grounds. |
| Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) | Regulatory failure to follow procedures is reviewable and not barred by discretionary review rule. | Discretionary-review provision divests district court of jurisdiction over the revocation decision. | The district court retains jurisdiction to review procedural compliance. |
| Whether the beneficiary falls within the zone of interests | Beneficiary's interests in the I-140 process are within the zone of interests protected by the statute. | Agency focus is on employer interests; beneficiary status is not within zone of interests. | Beneficiary falls within the zone of interests and may challenge revocation. |
| Whether the district court may review whether USCIS followed its regulations | Alleges USCIS failed to follow its own binding regulations in revoking the petitions. | Regulatory compliance is an merits issue, not jurisdictional. | District court has jurisdiction to consider regulatory compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (constitutional standing requires injury, traceability, redressability)
- Patel v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 732 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2013) (beneficiary has standing under zone-of-interests analysis)
- Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (S. Ct. 2012) (presumption of reviewability of agency action; jurisdictional reach)
- Hollywood Mobile Estates Ltd. v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 641 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2011) (zone-of-interests test is lenient)
- Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2000) (agencies must respect their procedural rules)
- Fla. Dep't of Bus. Regulation v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 768 F.2d 1248 (11th Cir. 1985) (agency must follow internal procedures)
- Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (U.S. 1974) (procedural requirements in agency action)
- Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass'n, 479 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1987) (zone-of-interests analysis standard)
- Liberal Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (S. Ct. 2014) (prudential standing framings clarified)