Mott Fights Denial of Assistant's Visa

A federal judge has denied a request for a preliminary injunction from Hall of Fame trainer Bill Mott that would allow one of his assistants, Rodolphe Brisset, to continue working while he seeks to overturn a denial of a visa renewal.



In his ruling, Judge Reggie Walton, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said Mott Thoroughbred Stables, Inc., which filed the legal action, had failed to show that the stable, consistently among the top 10 in the U.S., would suffer "irreparable harm" that would justify granting of the injunction. And although he has yet to rule on the merits of the litigation brought by the stable in attempting to retain Brisset, Walton questioned some of the arguments posited by the plaintiffs.



The litigation was filed after Brisset, a native of France who has worked for Mott for four years, was denied a request for a renewal of an O-1B visa.



Defendants in the suit are U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services director Leon Rodriguez, Department of Homeland Security secretary Jeh Charles Johnson, U.S. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief Ron Rosenburg, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services director Carrie Selby.



Among other arguments, the suit contends the visa denial was arbitrary and capricious, citing previous actions in which the Brisset's visa was renewed twice.



According to court documents, an employer can file a petition requesting the U.S. confer temporary, non-immigrant status upon a beneficiary, who "has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim or, with regard to motion picture and television productions a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement, and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and seeks to enter the United States to continue to work in the area of extraordinary ability."



"The plaintiff has proffered no explanation as to why the beneficiary's field of Thoroughbred racehorse training qualifies as a field in the 'arts'," Walton wrote. "Although the denial of the latest O-1 petition is a departure from the earlier favorable adjudication of the plaintiff's O-1 petitions, that alone is an insufficient basis to disturb or set aside the agency action.

"The court, therefore, finds that the agency's rationale for denying the plaintiff's most recent O-1 petition is reasonable, as there is no indication that the agency did not consider all relevant facts or that its denial was not a product of fair and reasoned judgment... Accordingly, the court concludes that the plaintiff does not have a likelihood, let alone a substantial one, of succeeding on the merits in challenging the proprietary of the agency's denial of the plaintiff's most recent O-1 petition..."



Walton said the request for injunctive relief that cites irreparable harm does not rise to the standard for such action, noting previous cases in which it was determined that the plaintiff can show the economic loss cited by Mott as a result of his inability to employ Brisset "threatens the very existence of the (plaintiff's) business."



Noting that Mott's stable has earned in excess of $70.5 million since 2007 and more than $10 million in 2013 alone, Walton said, "Without the benefit of any additional financial information, such as operating costs and the like, the plaintiff can hardly be said to be teetering on the edge of financial ruin absent the granting of a preliminary injunction when its business does not rely exclusively on the beneficiary (Brisset)."



With several assistants operating different divisions of the Mott stable that has over 100 horses, Walton said "the plaintiff has not foreclosed the possibility that its other horse trainers can either compensate for any loss in earnings without the beneficiary's services or that the other trainers could match or even outperform the beneficiary in the upcoming Thoroughbred horse racing seasons, thereby equaling or eclipsing the earnings attributable to the beneficiary."



Walton said Mott has conceded to the court that suitable replacements for Brisset exist should he be required to leave the country.



The judge said finding a replacement for Mott's assistant could be costly and time-consuming, those inconveniences do not justify the granting of a preliminary injunction.



"The plaintiff has not explained why replacements for the beneficiary cannot be found, let alone that a search for replacements has even been attempted, and if so, has been unsuccessful," Walton wrote in a footnote. "In this respect, the alleged irreparable harm is cause, at least in part, by the plaintiff's own inaction."