Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitlitigationinjunctionmotionvisa
litigationinjunctionmotion

Related Cases

Hui Yu v. Department of Homeland Security
View Case »
Tungwarara v. United States
View Case »
Tumoe v. Barr
View Case »
Nepal; U.S. v.
View Case »
Doherty v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Behring Regional Center, LLC v. Mayorkas

Facts

Behring Regional Center, operating under a program established by Congress in 1992, pools investments from foreign visa applicants to promote job growth in the U.S. Following the enactment of the Reform and Integrity Act in March 2022, USCIS announced that all previously authorized regional centers were deauthorized, effectively cutting off their revenue streams. Behring contended that this interpretation was erroneous and arbitrary, leading to its lawsuit against the agency.

Behring Regional Center operates in California under the original program that Congress authorized in 1992. Like hundreds of regional centers across the country, it pools investments to fund domestic projects. Following the agency's announcement that regional centers 'previously designated . . . are no longer authorized,' Behring sued.

Issue

Did the USCIS err in interpreting the Reform and Integrity Act as deauthorizing existing regional centers, and was this decision arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act?

Did the USCIS err in interpreting the Reform and Integrity Act as deauthorizing existing regional centers, and was this decision arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act?

Rule

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agency actions can be set aside if they are found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

The APA instructs courts to 'hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.' 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A).

Analysis

The court analyzed the agency's interpretation of the Integrity Act and found it likely to be incorrect, as the Act was ambiguous regarding the deauthorization of existing regional centers. The court noted that the agency's decision did not adequately consider the implications for the regional centers and failed to balance the competing interests at stake. This led the court to conclude that Behring was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim.

Behring has made an exceedingly strong showing that the agency violated the APA. USCIS was almost certainly wrong in assuming that the Integrity Act affirmatively deauthorized existing regional centers, so the agency was almost certainly wrong to announce that the centers are no longer authorized.

Conclusion

The court granted Behring's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining USCIS from treating existing regional centers as deauthorized while the litigation is ongoing.

The court granted Behring's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining USCIS from treating existing regional centers as deauthorized while the litigation is pending.

Who won?

Behring Regional Center prevailed in the case because the court found that the agency's decision was likely arbitrary and capricious, failing to properly interpret the law and consider the interests of the regional centers.

Behring prevailed in the case because the court found that the agency's decision was likely arbitrary and capricious, failing to properly interpret the law and consider the interests of the regional centers.

You must be