Caremax Inc v. Holder

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that USCIS did not abuse its discretion when it found that a public relations specialist was not a “specialty occupation,” due in part to petitioner’s representation that position was classified with the DOL as Wage Level I
• “A position that requires applicants to have any bachelor’s degree, or a bachelor’s degree in a large subset of fields, can hardly be considered specialized.”
• “Public Relations Specialist” is not a specialized occupation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Raj & Co. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services
  W.D. Washington· 2015-01-14· cited 7×
• Chung Song Ja Corp. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services
  W.D. Washington· 2015-03-11· cited 2×
• Innova Solutions, Inc. v. Baran
  N.D. California· 2018-10-10· cited 2×
• Taylor Made Software, Inc. v. Cissna
  District of Columbia· 2020-03-31
• Vision Builders, LLC v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
  District of Columbia· 2020-10-05

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.
  Supreme Court· 1983-06-24· cited 8,453×
• Northwest Motorcycle Ass'n v. United States Department of Agriculture
  Ninth Circuit· 1994-03-17· cited 199×
• Sierra Club v. Clark
  Ninth Circuit· 1985-03-25· cited 26×
• Tapis International v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
  D. Massachusetts· 2000-04-24· cited 11×
• Fred 26 Importers, Inc. v. United States Department of Homeland Security
  C.D. California· 2006-08-23· cited 5×
• SEA
  Board of Immigration Appeals· 1988-07-01· cited 2×