July 23, 2012

On May 25, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota affirmed the USCIS’s decision to deny an H-1B visa petition based on a finding by the agency that the position of “Financial and Operations Analyst” did not qualify as a specialty occupation. The Plaintiff had sought a declaration from the District Court that the USCIS’s decision constituted an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion. An agency abuses its discretion if its decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is based upon an improper understanding of the law. Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1162.

The USCIS had concluded that the record failed to establish that the duties to be performed by this beneficiary required the “theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained by at least a bachelor’s degree,” as is required for H-1B petitions pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i). While USCIS noted that a bachelor’s degree is usually the minimum educational requirement for many operations research analyst jobs, it went on to state that it is not “an occupational group that categorically requires a specialty-occupation level of education” and that a bachelor’s degree alone is not enough for all positions in the occupational category to be recognized as specialty occupations. The Court found that the evidence in the record did not compel a contrary finding and therefore concluded that the USCIS’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious. A reviewing court may only set aside agency action when the decision is found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).