Not a Lexis Advance 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.
CARE v. Nielsen
"[T]his Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that it had met at least one of the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1). Specifically, Plaintiff demonstrated that the Impact Data Analyst position required attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation, in satisfaction of 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1)(B). In its denial of the Petition, the Defendants did not sufficiently consider all of the relevant factors and evidence before it. Nor did Defendants provide an adequate explanation as to how the Defendants reached some of their conclusions. The denial also failed to adequately elucidate the Defendants’ reason for finding that the Impact Data Analyst position did not require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, the other requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1).
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 18] is therefore GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as Defendants’ denial of Plaintiff’s H-1B Petition is set aside. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 21] is DENIED. This matter is remanded to the USCIS for further proceedings, consistent with this Order and Opinion. Defendants are directed to reconsider their decision regarding the Plaintiff's H-1B visa application at issue in light of the findings herein and in light of the evidence of Record favorable to Plaintiff discussed here that the Agency either failed to address or summarily and arbitrarily rejected."
[Hats off to Marshall Lewis Cohen and Myron N. Kramer!]