Gurmeet Singh, an Indian citizen and Sikh priest, entered the United States in 2011 on an R-1 religious worker visa sponsored by the Sikh Society of Wisconsin. Due to delays in his arrival, the Wisconsin temple sent him to work at temples in California and Indiana while retaining control over his visa and paying his salary. In 2012, the Indiana temple filed a new petition, and Singh eventually applied for adjustment of status to become a lawful permanent resident based on a Special Immigrant Visa. His application was denied because he had worked at the California and Indiana temples for more than 180 days without authorization from those specific entities. An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial, finding that the room and board Singh received from the out-of-state temples counted as remuneration for services, thereby constituting unauthorized employment under the law.
The Seventh Circuit first addressed the government's argument that it lacked jurisdiction to review the petition because it challenged factual findings. The court clarified that while 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips courts of the power to review judgments regarding the granting of relief, § 1252(a)(2)(D) preserves review of constitutional claims and questions of law. Citing Supreme Court precedent in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr and Wilkinson v. Garland, the court explained that a 'question of law' includes the application of a legal standard to established facts, known as a mixed question of law and fact. The court determined that the issue of whether Singh's work constituted 'unauthorized employment' was a mixed question because the historical facts were established, but the application of the statutory definition of 'employment' to those facts was a legal determination. On the merits, the court applied a deferential standard of review. The relevant statute bars adjustment for those who have engaged in more than 180 days of unauthorized employment, and regulations define 'employee' as one who provides services for wages or other remuneration. Singh argued that the room and board he received did not constitute remuneration because such benefits were also available to the general public. The court rejected this, noting that the parties agreed remuneration is not limited to monetary earnings. The court found it reasonable for the agency to conclude that Singh received food and lodging in exchange for his services as a priest. The court emphasized that the fact that some benefits were available to others did not negate that Singh received them specifically because of the services he provided, particularly given that the rooms designated for him were not available to the general public.
The decision affirms the denial of Gurmeet Singh's application for lawful permanent resident status, leaving him subject to removal proceedings. It reinforces the strict interpretation of 'remuneration' in immigration law, clarifying that non-monetary compensation like room and board counts as employment if provided in exchange for services. The ruling confirms that immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals have broad discretion to determine whether a noncitizen's work arrangement violates visa terms, and that courts will only intervene if there is a clear error in applying the legal standard to the facts. No remand instructions were issued as the petition was denied outright.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download