Kantamneni v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Background

Dasaradh Kantamneni brought three claims under the Administrative Procedure Act against the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). He challenged DHS’s use of an anti-collusion attestation for H-1B lottery registrations, argued that DHS treated him as inadmissible without finding that he personally knowingly misrepresented information, and argued that DHS revoked his H-1B lottery number without giving him notice or an opportunity to respond.

Aurbeta Consulting Services, Inc. registered Kantamneni for the fiscal year 2023 H-1B lottery, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved Aurbeta’s H-1B petition on October 1, 2022. Kantamneni later transferred his employment to Infotran Engineers & Architects, P.C.; USCIS approved Infotran’s petition, and Kantamneni’s H-1B status remained valid until November 10, 2025.

USCIS later sent Aurbeta a notice of intent to revoke its petition. The notice alleged that Aurbeta had worked with other entities to submit multiple registrations to increase Kantamneni’s chances of selection and also stated that Aurbeta had not shown that the offered position was a specialty occupation. Aurbeta withdrew the petition, USCIS accepted the withdrawal, and Kantamneni lost the associated H-1B cap number. The opinion states that Kantamneni remained in H-1B status and could seek a new cap number through a future lottery.

Motion to Dismiss

DHS moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that Kantamneni lacked Article III standing. DHS also argued under Rule 12(b)(6) that the amended complaint failed to state a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act.

To establish standing, Kantamneni had to show an injury that was concrete and actual or imminent, fairly traceable to DHS’s conduct, and likely to be remedied by a favorable court decision. The court concluded that he failed to satisfy these requirements.

Standing Analysis

The court first rejected Kantamneni’s allegation that DHS had found him inadmissible. Kantamneni had conceded that neither USCIS nor DHS had made such a finding. That allegation therefore could not establish standing.

The court also held that the loss of Kantamneni’s H-1B cap number was not fairly traceable to DHS. In the court’s view, the loss resulted from Aurbeta’s alleged conduct, its failure to respond substantively to the notice of intent to revoke, and its withdrawal of the petition. Those were independent actions by a third party, not actions by DHS. The court also noted that Kantamneni did not challenge other statutes and regulations that independently prohibited fraud or willful misrepresentation in the H-1B process.

The court further held that the alleged injury was not redressable. The revocation notice identified an additional, unchallenged ground for revocation: Aurbeta had not established that the offered position qualified as a specialty occupation. Also, the fiscal year 2023 cap had already been reached, so the court could not restore a number that was no longer available. Kantamneni also remained eligible to seek a new cap number through a future lottery.

The court rejected Kantamneni’s lack-of-notice theory as well. Under the applicable immigration regulations, an H-1B beneficiary is not a recognized party in the employer’s petition proceeding and is not entitled to notice of the petition’s revocation. The court also stated that a bare procedural violation, without a concrete harm, does not establish standing. Because Kantamneni had not lost his H-1B status or his opportunity to seek H-1B status in the future, the alleged lack of notice did not establish an injury in fact. The court additionally concluded that an order requiring notice would not remedy the loss caused by Aurbeta’s independent decisions.

Disposition

Judge Paul G. Gardephe held that Kantamneni had not demonstrated standing to pursue any of his claims. The court granted DHS’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the court found no standing, it did not reach DHS’s argument that the amended complaint failed to state a claim.

The court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice, denied leave to amend, directed the clerk to enter judgment for DHS, and closed the case.