541 F.Supp.3d 1160
D. Or.2021Background
- Web Saigon US (Oregon) filed an L-1B petition on behalf of Nguyen Ba Hoang Long, a senior developer employed by affiliated Vietnamese company Web Saigon Co., LTD, to transfer to the U.S. to work with strategic partner Forix on custom Magento modules.
- Long had worked for Web Saigon Vietnam since 2017 and alleged ~1.5 years of training to acquire knowledge of the partnership’s processes and custom modules; petition asserted this knowledge was "specialized."
- USCIS issued an RFE focusing on whether the foreign and U.S. positions and Long himself possessed specialized knowledge; Plaintiffs responded but USCIS denied the petition on December 15, 2020, finding Plaintiffs failed to show knowledge was "distinct or uncommon" in the industry.
- Plaintiffs sued under the APA, the Mandamus Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act and moved for summary judgment; Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment.
- Plaintiffs argued the denial contained material factual errors and that USCIS disregarded extensive probative evidence showing specialized knowledge and economic inconvenience; USCIS argued the record does not show the requisite distinct or uncommon knowledge.
- The district court applied the APA standard, found USCIS’s decision supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious, denied Plaintiffs’ motion, and granted Defendants’ motion (order dated May 27, 2021).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USCIS made material factual errors that invalidated the denial | USCIS misstated the nature of the specialized knowledge, mischaracterized Forix as a "client," and called Magento a "product," which tainted the decision | Alleged misstatements were semantic or immaterial and did not affect the legal analysis; USCIS correctly understood the partnership and Magento usage | Court: Errors, if any, were not material; they did not render the decision arbitrary or capricious |
| Whether USCIS ignored or improperly discounted probative evidence of specialized knowledge | Letters, code samples, screenshots, and testimony showed Long’s knowledge was uncommon and required significant training and would cause economic inconvenience if lost | Evidence was largely conclusory or demonstrated only familiarity with Magento; record did not show knowledge was distinct or uncommon or that transfer would cause undue economic harm | Court: USCIS reasonably evaluated credibility and probative value; evidence did not meet preponderance standard for specialized knowledge |
| Whether the foreign position, U.S. position, and beneficiary met the L-1B "specialized knowledge" standard | Petition asserted the foreign and U.S. roles and Long’s expertise in custom modules/processes satisfied the statutory/regulatory definition | USCIS: Magento is common; custom modules and partnership processes were not shown to be sufficiently unique versus industry norms | Court: Substantial evidence supports USCIS’s three-limb denial (foreign position, U.S. position, beneficiary) |
| Standard of review under APA and whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious | Plaintiffs urged de novo weighing of evidence and reversal | Defendants relied on deferential APA review and substantial-evidence standard for agency factfinding | Court: Applied APA deferential review and concluded USCIS’s explanations permit reasonable discernment of its path; not arbitrary or capricious |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 269 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (district court “sits as an appellate tribunal” in APA review of immigration decisions)
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2014) (agency action upheld unless arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law)
- Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard requires rational connection between facts and decision)
- Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (1974) (court may uphold agency decision if the agency’s path can reasonably be discerned)
- Family Inc. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006) (agency factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Cal. Wilderness Coal. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 631 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2011) (presumption of validity for agency action under deferential review)
- Fogo De Chao (Holdings) Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 769 F.3d 1127 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (discussing interpretation of L-1B "specialized knowledge" and role of policy guidance)