TAYLOR MADE SOFTWARE, INC. v. CISSNA
1:19-cv-00202
D.D.C.Mar 31, 2020Background
- Taylor Made Software filed an H-1B petition for Venkatesan Kannan to work as a computer systems analyst; USCIS denied the petition as the position was not a “specialty occupation” under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A).
- Taylor Made responded to an RFE with: a detailed job description, OOH and O*Net excerpts, an expert opinion (Dr. Lavine), comparator job ads, and résumé/employee qualification data.
- USCIS relied on the OOH language that some employers hire non-specialized-degree candidates, discounted the comparators and portions of the expert opinion, and concluded none of the four regulatory criteria were satisfied.
- Taylor Made sued under the APA; the Court reviewed whether USCIS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.
- The Court upheld USCIS’s interpretation that the term “degree” must be tied to a specific specialty, but found USCIS misread and failed to address critical OOH language as to whether a specialized bachelor’s is “normally” required.
- Holding: the Court granted Taylor Made summary judgment, denied USCIS’s cross-motion, and remanded for further explanation/consideration limited to the agency’s treatment of criterion (1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of USCIS’s interpretation of § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) (does "degree" require a specialty) | The regulation’s plain text says only "a degree," so USCIS unlawfully read in a "specific specialty." | USCIS must read § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) in context with the INA and § 214.2(h)(4)(ii); "degree" reasonably means a degree in a related specialty. | Court upheld USCIS’s contextual interpretation. |
| Whether the position meets criterion (1): a baccalaureate in a specific specialty is normally the minimum | The OOH and other record evidence show a computer-related bachelor’s is common/normal, satisfying (1). | OOH acknowledges some employers hire non-specialty-degree candidates; USCIS reasonably found (1) not met. | Court found USCIS misread/failed to address OOH language that “most” have computer-related degrees; remanded for reconsideration. |
| Whether the position meets criterion (2): industry commonness or unique complexity | Taylor Made’s comparator ads and evidence show the degree requirement is common in parallel positions. | Comparator postings were not adequately shown to be parallel or from similar organizations; USCIS reasonably rejected them. | Court sustained USCIS’s rejection of the comparators as insufficient. |
| Whether USCIS properly weighed other record evidence (criterion (3) employer requirement; criterion (4) specialized duties and expert opinion) | Employer’s employee-education data, internal job ads, and Dr. Lavine’s opinion show the employer normally requires a degree and duties are specialized. | Employee degrees not shown to be required; internal ads were for different titles; expert relied on petitioner’s statements and lacked independent study. | Court found USCIS reasonably discounted the employee postings and expert opinion; but the agency must reconsider in light of remand on criterion (1). |
Key Cases Cited
- Sagarwala v. Cissna, 387 F. Supp. 3d 56 (D.D.C. 2019) (endorsing contextual reading of § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A))
- Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (OOH language that "most" have degrees can show the degree is normally required)
- Raj & Co. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (generalized bachelor’s degree alone does not establish specialty occupation)
- Innova Solutions, Inc. v. Baran, 399 F. Supp. 3d 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (OOH evidence may be insufficient alone; petitioner must show particular position subset)
- Caremax, Inc. v. Holder, 40 F. Supp. 3d 1182 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (a position requiring any bachelor’s degree is not necessarily a specialty occupation)
- Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2000) (interpretive context for § 214.2 criteria)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious review standard)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (remand is the usual remedy when agency action violates the APA)