Fontenoy Engineering Inc v. Kathy Baran

Background

Fontenoy sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act of the denial of its H-1B petition for Mark Goan. Fontenoy intended to employ Goan as a Civil Engineer (Energy). USCIS denied the petition after determining that Fontenoy and JMB Construction, Inc. had filed duplicate H-1B petitions for the same beneficiary and appeared to be related entities without a legitimate business need for multiple petitions. USCIS also questioned whether Fontenoy had presented a credible job offer, whether it had an employer-employee relationship with Goan, and whether Goan’s foreign degree qualified him for the position.

The Administrative Appeals Office affirmed the denial and later denied Fontenoy’s motions to reopen and reconsider. The AAO concluded that the petitions were materially identical, that Fontenoy had not established a legitimate business need, and that the record did not sufficiently show that the offered position was a genuine civil-engineering job. The court had previously granted Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss two claims, leaving Fontenoy’s Administrative Procedure Act claim for decision on these cross-motions for summary judgment.

Legal standard

The court reviewed the agency’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act’s deferential arbitrary-and-capricious and substantial-evidence standards. The court explained that it could not reweigh the evidence or make its own factual findings. It had to determine whether the administrative record provided a rational connection between the facts and the agency’s decision and whether substantial evidence supported that decision.

Related entities

The court held that the agency was not limited to formal corporate relationships such as parent companies, subsidiaries, or affiliates when deciding whether petitioners were “related entities” under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). The court found persuasive an agency decision calling for a fact-specific review of the companies’ actual relationship, including familial ties, locations, leadership, employment history, similar assignments, and substantially similar supporting documents.

The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the AAO’s determination that Fontenoy and JMB were related entities. Relevant circumstances included the nearly identical petitions, their submission through the same attorney, Aidan O’Sullivan’s connection to visa petitions filed by JMB, and apparent connections involving company personnel. The court noted that Fontenoy had not adequately addressed several of the agency’s concerns and stated that it could not reweigh the evidence considered by the AAO.

Legitimate business need

Related entities may file multiple H-1B petitions for the same beneficiary if they establish a legitimate business need. The court rejected two of the AAO’s reasons for finding no legitimate business need. It concluded that similar petitions, standing alone, did not show a lack of legitimate business need, and that the AAO had misconstrued Fontenoy’s statement that Goan sought multiple job offers to improve his own chances in the H-1B lottery.

Nevertheless, the court upheld the agency’s ultimate conclusion because the AAO had also reasonably found that Fontenoy did not establish a credible, bona fide job opportunity. The listed duties appeared to overlap substantially with construction-management duties, the supporting professor’s letter discussed construction management rather than civil engineering, and Fontenoy had not shown that Goan’s degree was equivalent to a civil-engineering degree or a closely related specialty. The construction contracts submitted by Fontenoy showed a general need for civil engineers but did not establish that the specific position offered to Goan was a civil-engineering position.

Burden of proof and motion to reopen

The court rejected Fontenoy’s argument that USCIS and the AAO imposed a heightened burden of proof. The court stated that the applicable standard was proof by a preponderance of the evidence and concluded that the record showed Fontenoy repeatedly failed to address concerns raised by the agency.

The court also rejected Fontenoy’s challenge to the AAO’s handling of its motion to reopen. The AAO had considered the new evidence about Fontenoy’s contracts but reasonably determined that the evidence did not address other relevant concerns about the relationship between Fontenoy and JMB. The court therefore found no error in the AAO’s treatment of that evidence.

Disposition

The court denied Fontenoy’s motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for Defendants and against Fontenoy and close the file.