USCIS

BACKGROUND

19 On March 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this case, in which he asserted 20 Defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. section 706(2)(A), by denying his 21 application for an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”) under the STEM Optional 22 Practical Training Extension Program (“STEM OPT”). (See generally Dkt. No. 1, Complaint 23 (“Compl.”).) USCIS denied the application on March 2, 2020. Plaintiff alleged that UCSIS 24 incorrectly determined that Plaintiff lost his student status because he had applied for and received 25 an H-1B work permit. Plaintiff alleged that, in fact, he had not lost his student status because he 26 did not go through consular processing. Thus, the H-1B work permit was not activated. (Compl. 27 ¶¶ 34-60.) Plaintiff alleged that the denial was “contrary to the USCIS’ ordinary practice” because USCIS did not provide him an opportunity “to supplement or clarify the record.” To support that allegation, Plaintiff cited a USCIS Policy Memorandum dated June 3, 2013 (the “2013 Policy Memorandum”). (Id. ¶¶ 55-56, Ex. F.) On April 22, 2020, USCIS reopened Plaintiff’s case and…