recent Immigration Law Precedents: Case Briefs and Analysis

Hung Huu Quoc Nguyen applied for an EB-3 visa through his employer, Muy Pizza Tejas, LLC, which filed an I-140 petition after obtaining labor certification. Nguyen, along with his family residing lawfully in the U.S., subsequently filed for adjustment of status. After Muy Pizza sold the business to Ayvaz Pizza, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke the I-140 petition, citing concerns regarding Muy Pizza’s ability to pay Nguyen's proffered wage. Ultimately, USCIS revoked the petition, prompting Nguyen to challenge this decision and the denial of his adjustment of status.

The core issue was whether Nguyen could retain his immigration benefits under the job portability provisions of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) following the revocation of his I-140 petition, as well as the implications of a successor-in-interest relationship.

1. Portability Under AC21: The Fifth Circuit ruled that to benefit from the job portability provisions of AC21 (8 U.S.C. § 1154(j)), a valid I-140 petition must be in place. Since Nguyen's I-140 was revoked, the court determined that the portability provisions were not applicable, reinforcing prior rulings that invalidate benefits if the underlying petition is no longer valid​
   Findlaw.
2. Discretionary Authority of USCIS: The court highlighted the discretionary nature of USCIS’s decisions regarding petition revocations. It cited 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which restricts courts from reviewing discretionary decisions made by immigration authorities, affirming the agency's broad authority in immigration matters​.
3. Successor-in-Interest Determination: The court evaluated the requirements for establishing a successor-in-interest claim. It concluded that a new or amended I-140 petition must be filed for a successor-in-interest to assume the benefits of the original petition. Since Ayvaz Pizza did not file such a petition, Nguyen could not demonstrate the continuity needed to benefit from the previous I-140 approval​
   Findlaw.
4. Procedural Errors: Nguyen alleged procedural errors during the USCIS process; however, the court found no specific errors that warranted judicial intervention, as USCIS's actions were deemed within its discretionary powers​
   Findlaw.

The ruling in Nguyen v. Jaddou clarifies the limitations on retaining immigration benefits in the event of petition revocation and underscores the requirements for asserting successor-in-interest claims. This case illustrates the complexities involved in employment-based immigration and emphasizes the necessity of maintaining valid petitions to benefit from job portability.

For more details, refer to the case documentation on Justia and FindLaw.