United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 6, 2021 Decided July 20, 2021 No. 20-5235 ITECH U.S., INC, APPELLANT v. TRACY RENAUD, ACTING DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, APPELLEE Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:19-cv-03352) Geoffrey Forney argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Bradley B. Banias. Aaron S. Goldsmith, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Glenn M. Girdharry, Assistant Director. Kenneth A. Adebonojo and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorneys entered appearances. Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, WILKINS and KATSAS, Circuit Judges. 2 Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKINS. WILKINS, Circuit Judge: iTech US, Inc. (“iTech”) filed an I-140 immigrant visa petition on behalf of Vishnu Vardhana Reddy Katta Sai Sampoorna (“Reddy”). Approval of an I-140 petition is one step on an immigrant worker’s long path to acquire permanent resident status. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) approved the petition, but revoked its approval three years later. When iTech petitioned the District Court for review of that decision, the District Court found that Congress placed visa revocation decisions within the unreviewable discretion of the executive and dismissed iTech’s suit for lack of jurisdiction. We agree. Joining nine of our sister Circuits, we affirm. I. This appeal concerns two interlocking provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. Some background is necessary to understand how Mr. Reddy acquired and lost his non-immigrant status. A. “The INA allows for a certain number of immigrants to receive permanent residency through employer sponsorship.” Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721, 724 (2d Cir. 2015); see 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A) (establishing the percentage of visas available to “qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent . . . and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States”). Immigrant workers and their potential employers must follow a three-step process. First, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) must certify that the “labor market can absorb the immigrant without affecting other workers’ wages.” Mantena, 809 F.3d 3 at 724; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). Once DOL certifies the position, USCIS must approve the employer’s I- 140 immigrant visa petition. Mantena, 809 F.3d at 724–25; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b) (directing that “the Attorney General shall, if he determines that the facts stated in the petition are true and that the alien . . . is eligible for preference under subsection (a) or (b) of section 1153 of this title, approve the petition and forward one copy thereof to the Department of State”); 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(a)–(c) (establishing Form I-140 as the proper vehicle to petition the agency for classification under section 1153(b)(2)). Once granted, an immigrant visa petition under Form I-140 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals