Green Arrow Labs, Inc. v. Kristi Noem and Joseph B. Edlow

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina grants Defendants’ second motion to dismiss Green Arrow Labs, Inc.’s challenge to the rejection of its H-1B petitions. The court holds that Green Arrow lacks Article III standing because its injury was caused by an incomplete initial petition and untimely subsequent petitions, rather than unlawful agency conduct. The court also finds that Matter of Lozada and Romero v. Bondi do not apply to the H-1B application process and dismisses the complaint without prejudice.

Holdings

1. Green Arrow lacked Article III standing because the alleged injury was caused by its own incomplete initial filing and its untimely subsequent filings, rather than by unlawful conduct of USCIS.
2. USCIS acted within its regulatory discretion in rejecting Green Arrow's initial H-1B petition for omitting the required supplement and rejecting the later petitions as untimely.
3. Matter of Lozada does not require USCIS to accept untimely H-1B petitions based on ineffective assistance or attorney error.
4. Romero v. Bondi is inapposite because this case concerns an H-1B petition process, not a removal proceeding implicating the Fifth Amendment right to a fundamentally fair proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Green Arrow alleged an injury fairly traceable to USCIS's conduct sufficient to establish Article III standing.
2. Whether Green Arrow stated a claim that USCIS unlawfully rejected its H-1B petitions under the Administrative Procedure Act.
3. Whether Matter of Lozada required USCIS to accept Green Arrow's untimely H-1B petitions because former counsel caused the filing error.
4. Whether Romero v. Bondi's recognition of a due-process right to fundamentally fair removal proceedings affected the H-1B petition process.

Disposition

dismissed