UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHN DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 15-273 (CKK) UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (October 11, 2019) Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are foreign individuals seeking conditional permanent residence in the United States via the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. The United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied Plaintiffs’ visa petitions under that program. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), Plaintiffs challenge that denial as arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, beyond the scope of USCIS’s statutory authority, in violation of congressional intent, and contrary to their Constitutional rights. Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs’ [144] Motion for Summary Judgment and USCIS’s [146] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the pleadings, 1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion and GRANTS USCIS’s Cross-Motion. USCIS 1 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following documents: • Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. and Memo. of Law in Support (“Pls.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 144; • Defs.’ Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. and Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“Defs.’ Cross-Mot. and Opp’n”), ECF No. 146; • Pls.’ Res. to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. and Reply to Defs.’ Res. to Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pls.’ Opp’n and Reply”), ECF No. 149; and • Defs.’ Res. in Support of Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. and Reply in Opp’n to Pls.’ Res. (“Defs.’ Reply”), ECF No. 151. 1 denied Plaintiffs’ visa petitions because Plaintiffs failed to establish that it was more likely than not that the Job Creating Entities which would receive Plaintiffs’ investments were principally doing business in a Targeted Employment Area. Additionally and independently, USCIS denied Plaintiffs’ visa petitions because Plaintiffs failed to establish that it was more likely than not that their investments would create full time positions for at least ten qualifying employees. 2 The Court concludes that the denial on either ground was reasonable and not arbitrary and capricious, not unsupported by substantial evidence, not beyond the scope of USCIS’s statutory authority, not in violation of congressional intent, and not contrary to Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights. I. BACKGROUND A. Statutory and Regulatory Background The EB-5 Program was created by Congress as part of the Immigration Act of 1990. See Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat 4978. The program is codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5). Pursuant to the EB-5 Program, “[v]isas shall be made available . . . to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise (including a limited partnership) (i) in which such alien has invested . . . or, is actively in the process of investing, capital in an amount not less than the amount specified in subparagraph (C), and (ii) which will benefit the United States economy and create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals