![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
RELX (LexisNexis) v. Baran
"In short, the LexisNexis position was a distinct occupationwhich required a specialized course of study, notwithstandingthe fact that the study included several specialized fields. Ms.Chatterjee completed that specialized course of study in therelevant fields and LexisNexis has employed her exactly becauseshe has the specialized skills to perform the duties of theposition and requisite educational requirements. The mountain ofevidence submitted by LexisNexis to support the petition morethan meets the preponderance of the evidence standard. Theagency’s decision was not “based on a consideration of therelevant factors” and was “a clear error of judgment.” SeeCitizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416(1971). USCIS acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and abused itsdiscretion in denying employer's petition for H–1B visa statuson behalf of Ms. Chatterjee. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motionfor summary judgment is GRANTED. ...
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss isDENIED and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.Accordingly, the defendants shall grant plaintiffs’ petition andis FURTHER ORDERED to change Ms. Chatterjee's status to H–1Bnonimmigrant. An appropriate Order accompanies this MemorandumOpinion."
[Hats off to Denyse Sabagh and Michael Schrier!]