Yogi Metals Group v. Garland, 38 F.4th 455

Yogi Metals (Texas) acquired 50% of SS Impex (India). In 2017 Yogi transferred Vinod Moorjani from SS Impex to serve as general manager of Yogi’s Houston scrapyard on an L‑1A visa.
Yogi Metals filed an I‑140 petition seeking an EB‑1C (multinational manager/executive) immigrant visa for Moorjani.
USCIS issued a notice of intent to deny, received two rounds of additional evidence from appellants, then denied the petition.
The district court granted summary judgment to USCIS under the Administrative Procedure Act, finding Moorjani was not primarily employed in a managerial capacity.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit applied the arbitrary-and-capricious standard and affirmed: the organizational chart and duty descriptions did not show Moorjani primarily performed managerial duties (managerial tasks were limited and about 35% of his time; reporting lines and supervision were not established).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether USCIS acted arbitrarily or capriciously in finding Moorjani was not primarily employed in a managerial capacity for EB‑1C eligibility	Moorjani’s org chart and duty statements show he supervised staff, hired/fired employees, and performed managerial functions	Evidence shows few managerial duties, org chart lacks subordinates reporting to Moorjani, hiring/firing alone does not prove primary managerial role; agency decision was reasonable	Affirmed — agency decision not arbitrary; evidence did not establish primary managerial capacity
Whether USCIS was bound by its earlier grant of an L‑1A when denying the EB‑1C petition	Prior L‑1A approval has similar requirements, so denying EB‑1C is arbitrary/inconsistent	Argument waived below; agency has discretion and policy that L‑1A approval does not bind later EB‑1C adjudication	Not considered on appeal for preservation reasons; alternatively, agency discretion and precedent permit different outcomes, so appellants did not overcome deference

Terrebonne Par. Sch. Bd. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 310 F.3d 870 (5th Cir. 2002) (de novo standard for reviewing grant of summary judgment)
Wilson v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 991 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1993) (defines arbitrary and capricious review standard)
Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) (agency must engage in reasoned decisionmaking under APA)
Nat’l Hand Tool Corp. v. Pasquarell, 889 F.2d 1472 (5th Cir. 1989) (applicant bears burden to establish eligibility by preponderance)
Est. of Duncan v. Comm’r, 890 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 2018) (issues not raised below generally forfeited on appeal)