Camphill Soltane v. US Department of Justice; Immigration & Naturalization Serivce

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third District

No. 03-1626

Camphill Soltane (“Camphill”), a non-profit organization dedicated to providing services to young adults with mental disabilities, appealed a final order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania affirming the denial of Camphill’s visa petition on behalf of an employee sought to be classified as a “special immigrant religious worker.”  The employee, Annagret Goetze, was originally admitted into the United States in the R-1 classification as a nonimmigrant religious worker.  In 2000, Camphill filed an I-360 immigrant visa petition on behalf of Goetze with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which sought to have Goetze classified as a special immigrant religious worker so that she could serve in the proposed position of houseparent, music instructor and religious instructor at the Camphill facility.  After requesting more evidence, the INS ultimately denied Camphill’s petition in February 2001, finding that Camphill had failed to establish that Goetze was to be employed in a religious occupation.

After Camphill filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Unit in December 2001, the Administrative Appeals Office of the INS affirmed the original decision on four independent grounds.  Camphill was not recognized as a religious organization as required under the regulations, the proposed position of houseparent was neither a religious occupation nor a religious vocation, there was insufficient eveidence to determine whether Goetze had worked in a religious position for two years preceding the petition, and Camphill provided insufficient evidence to prove that there was a qualifying tender of a job to Goetze.  In February 2003, the District Court entered judgment against Camphill, affirming the AAO decision on all four grounds.

In the final appeal, USCIS conceded that based on the Yates memo, Camphill, a mental health service provided, was indeed a religious organization.  The court stated that a religious worker immigrant petition is not a discretionary decision of the Attorney General, and that 8 CFR 204.5(m)(2) does not require that a religious occupation involve only religious functions.