Yogi Metals Group, Inc. v. Barr, 567 F.Supp.3d 793

Background

Yogi Metals (TX) sought an EB-1 multinational-executive visa for Vinod Moorjani, who worked for related Indian entity SS Impex and entered the U.S. on an L-1A in 2017.
Yogi filed Form I-140 in March 2018 with ~1,200 pages of supporting material; USCIS issued a NOID, Plaintiffs responded, USCIS reopened and issued a second NOID, Plaintiffs amended, and USCIS denied the petition in March 2020.
USCIS listed four deficiencies: (1) lack of evidence that Moorjani would be employed in a managerial capacity in the U.S.; (2) lack of evidence he had been employed in a managerial capacity abroad; (3) failure to show Yogi Metals was a multinational doing business in more than one country; and (4) insufficient proof Yogi could pay the proffered wage.
USCIS emphasized that the job description and organization chart were generic, lacked specifics on subordinate employees’ duties/qualifications, and contained inconsistencies in staffing that undermined proof Moorjani would be primarily performing managerial rather than day-to-day tasks.
Plaintiffs argued title, job description, org chart, and supplemental NOID response established managerial status and supervision of managerial employees; court reviewed the administrative record under the APA standard.
The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants and denied Plaintiffs’ motion, concluding USCIS’s denial was not arbitrary or capricious because Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden on the managerial-capacity ground, which was dispositive.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moorjani would be employed in a managerial capacity in the U.S.	Job title (General Manager), duties list, org chart and NOID response show primary managerial duties and supervision of managers	USCIS: descriptions are generic, org chart lacks subordinate job descriptions/credentials, staffing inconsistent — record doesn't show primary managerial duties	Denied relief. Court upheld USCIS denial as rational and not arbitrary or capricious; Plaintiffs failed their burden on this dispositive issue
Whether Moorjani had been employed in a managerial capacity abroad	Moorjani’s promotions and role at SS Impex show prior managerial employment	USCIS: insufficient specific evidence of managerial-level duties abroad	Not reached on the merits; denial affirmed on the U.S. managerial-capacity ground
Whether Yogi Metals qualifies as a multinational employer	Plaintiffs point to corporate ties with SS Impex entities and ownership interests	USCIS: record inadequately established the requisite multinational business operations	Not reached on the merits; denial affirmed on the U.S. managerial-capacity ground
Whether Yogi Metals could pay the proffered wage	Plaintiffs provided financials and corporate materials to show ability to pay	USCIS: evidence insufficient to establish ability to pay	Not reached on the merits; denial affirmed on the U.S. managerial-capacity ground

Key Cases Cited

National Hand Tool Corp. v. Pasquarell, 889 F.2d 1472 (5th Cir. 1989) (visa-denial review limited; agency decision reversible only if arbitrary or capricious)
Sierra Club v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 939 F.3d 649 (5th Cir. 2019) (explains arbitrary-and-capricious standard and required rational connection)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency must supply reasoned explanation connecting facts and choice)
Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962) (describes rational-connection requirement for agency decisions)
Texas Oil & Gas Ass'n v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 161 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1998) (illustrates arbitrary-and-capricious framework)
10 Ring Precision, Inc. v. Jones, 722 F.3d 711 (5th Cir. 2013) (describes narrow scope of arbitrary-and-capricious review)
Boi Na Braza Atlanta LLC v. Upchurch, [citation="194 F. App'x 248"] (5th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff bears burden of proving visa eligibility)
United States v. Garner, 767 F.2d 104 (5th Cir. 1985) (agency must engage in reasoned decisionmaking)