## Facts

- Gulamali Karmali, a Canadian citizen, worked for AF‑CHIM Pullman Enterprises, Inc., a Canadian corporation, beginning in November 1976.
- Karmali’s work involved assisting and investigating AF‑CHIM’s business holdings.
- In April 1977, relatives advanced funds enabling Karmali to buy and operate an Idaho motel/café/campground business.
- Karmali entered the United States on July 20, 1977 and managed the Idaho property; after a brief return to Canada, he reentered the United States and continued living and working there.
- The government charged Karmali with unlawful entry based on working and residing in the United States without an immigrant visa.
- On December 9, 1977, AF‑CHIM petitioned for Karmali’s classification as an intracompany transferee under INA § 101(a)(15)(L).
- The INS District Director denied the petition; the Regional Commissioner affirmed and denied reconsideration.
- Karmali and AF‑CHIM filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; the district court granted summary judgment for INS, finding no abuse of discretion.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to review the INS denial where the complaint relied only on the Declaratory Judgment Act.
2. Whether INS acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or abused its discretion by interpreting INA § 101(a)(15)(L) to require one year of continuous employment abroad before application/admission for L‑1 classification.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not independently confer jurisdiction, but federal-question jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and review was available under the APA.
- The court applied the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious/abuse-of-discretion standard.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for INS, holding that INS’s interpretation requiring one year of continuous employment abroad was reasonable and consistent with the L‑1 purpose.
- Because Karmali had only about eight months of qualifying employment abroad before entering the United States, INS reasonably concluded he did not satisfy the statutory requirement.

## Legal Principles

- The Declaratory Judgment Act provides a remedy but does not supply an independent basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 supports judicial review of INS petition denials, with the APA supplying the cause of action and standard of review.
- Under the APA, a reviewing court may set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law.
- When an immigration statute is silent or ambiguous on a specific point, a reasonable agency interpretation consistent with statutory purpose receives substantial deference.
- INS may interpret INA § 101(a)(15)(L) to require one year of continuous qualifying employment abroad before admission/application as an intracompany transferee.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit sustained jurisdiction under § 1331 and the APA and upheld INS’s denial of L‑1 classification because INS reasonably required a full year of continuous employment abroad, a condition Karmali did not meet before entering the United States.


Karmali v. INS, 707 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1983)