Previous Story
Viray Enterprises sues USCIS for adjudication of denied petition
Viray Enterprises Inc. is suing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court for the NMI for denying the CW-1 petition for one of its employees after claiming that Viray Enterprises is not a legitimate business.
Viray Enterprise, as relief, wants the court to issue declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, setting aside the USCIS denial, and to direct the defendants to grant the CW-1 petition and extend the authorized stay of the employee.
In addition, the plaintiff wants the court to review the decision of USCIS and have the CW-1 petition adjudicated.
According to the lawsuit, Viray Enterprises filed its timely renewal petition on behalf of one of its workers on July 26, 2021. USCIS issued a request for evidence or RFE on Sept. 2, 2021. The plaintiff then submitted a timely response to the RFE on Nov. 1, 2021. On Jan. 27, 2022, USCIS California Service Center denied the CW-1 petition. On the same date, USCIS denied the worker’s extension of authorized stay.
The lawsuit stated that the basis for denial was that Viray Enterprises is not a “legitimate business” on grounds that it failed the requirement of being an E-Verify participant in good standing. The plaintiff, in its response to the RFE, included a copy of its E-Verify registration confirmation. However, according to USCIS, the company’s evidence was not valid.
“Although you provided an active E-Verify Company Identification Number in response to our request, this evidence was not valid at the time the current petition was filed,” the lawsuit stated
Viray Enterprises claims that USCIS arbitrarily refused to accept the company as a “legitimate business” despite a sterling record of a decade of employing CW-1 workers.
On March 3, 2022, the plaintiff filed a timely motion to reopen and reconsider the denial with a form I-290B. On Nov. 3, 2022, USCIS California Service Center denied the motion.
“The denial was based on an insistence, without any meaningful analysis, discussion or consideration, that the motion did not meet the requirements for a motion for reconsideration,” the lawsuit stated.
