Gupta v. Headstrong, Inc. (Board decision, February 14, 2017)

Plain-English summary

Arvind Gupta brought an H-1B visa program complaint against Headstrong. The Board affirmed the judge's dismissal of the case on January 26, 2017 and found Headstrong's cross-appeal moot. Gupta then asked the Board to reconsider. The Board denied the motion because it identified no new facts, change in law, overlooked material facts, or other legally sufficient ground for reconsideration. This order does not decide the underlying H-1B complaint again.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: H-1B program complaint under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(2); reconsideration of a Board decision.
• Outcome: Motion for reconsideration denied; the earlier dismissal remains in place.
• Key point: A request for reconsideration must identify a legally sufficient ground; Gupta's motion identified none.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor
Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

In the Matter of:

ARVIND GUPTA,
ARB CASE NOS. 15-032
15-033
PETITIONER/
CROSS-RESPONDENT, ALJ CASE NO. 2014-LCA-008

v. DATE: February 14, 2017

HEADSTRONG, INC.,

RESPONDENT/
CROSS-PETITIONER.

BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD

Appearances:

For the Petitioner/Cross-Respondent:
Arvind Gupta, pro se, Mumbai, India

For the Respondent/Cross-Petitioner:
Dana G. Weisbrod, Esq.; Jackson Lewis, P.C.; New York, New York; Forrest G.
Read, IV, Esq.; and Michael H. Neifach, Esq.; Jackson Lewis, P.C., Reston, Virginia

BEFORE: Paul M. Igasaki, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge; E. Cooper Brown, Administrative Appeals Judge; and Joanne Royce, Administrative Appeals Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Arvind Gupta filed a complaint under the H-1B visa program provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 1182(n)(2) (Thomson Reuters 2016) and the regulations at 20 C.F.R. Part 655, subparts H, I (2016). A Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the case. Each party filed an

USDOL/OALJ REPORTER
PAGE 1
 appeal with the Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board). 1 In a Decision and Order issued 0F

January 26, 2017, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision and dismissed the case. The Board denied as moot Headstrong, Inc.’s cross-appeal. Gupta v. Headstrong, Inc., ARB Nos. 15-032, - 033, ALJ No. 2014-LCA-008 (ARB Jan. 26, 2017). On February 2, 2017, Gupta filed a motion requesting that the Board reconsider its dismissal of his appeal. Headstrong, Inc. has not filed a response.

The Board has previously identified four non-exclusive grounds for reconsidering a final decision and order. The grounds for reconsideration include, but are not limited to, whether the movant has demonstrated

(i) material differences in fact or law from that presented to [the Board] of which the moving party could not have known through reasonable diligence, (ii) new material facts that occurred after the [Board’s] decision, (iii) a change in the law after the [Board’s] decision, and (iv) failure to consider material facts presented to the [Board] before its decision.[ 2]
1F

Gupta’s motion for reconsideration contains no argument as to any of these grounds or any other legally sufficient grounds to support his motion. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

PAUL M. IGASAKI
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge

E. COOPER BROWN
Administrative Appeals Judge

JOANNE ROYCE
Administrative Appeals Judge

1
The Secretary of Labor has delegated to the Administrative Review Board authority to issue final agency decisions under the INA. Secretary’s Order No. 02-2012 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), 77 Fed. Reg. 69,378 - 69,380 (Nov. 16, 2012).
2
Kirk v. Rooney Trucking, ARB No. 14-035, ALJ No. 2013-STA-042, slip op. at 2 (ARB Mar.
24, 2016); OFCCP v. Fla. Hosp. of Orlando, ARB No.11-011, ALJ No. 2009-OFC-002, slip op. at 4, n.4 (ARB July 22, 2013) (Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration and Vacating Final Decision and Order Issued Oct. 19, 2012) (citation omitted).

USDOL/OALJ REPORTER
PAGE 2