Guida v. Miller et al
Filing
38
Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. In the attached order, the court denies the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grants the government's cross-motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff did not establish eligibility for a third criterion by a preponderance of the evidence. The agency's action was thus not arbitrary and capricious.(lblc5S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2021)
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
San Francisco Division
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
FABIAN ERNESTO GUIDA,
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
LOREN K. MILLER, et al.,
Defendants.
15
Case No. 20-cv-01471-LB
ORDER GRANTING THE
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENYING
THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Re: ECF No. 31, 33
16
17
INTRODUCTION
18
The plaintiff, a citizen of Argentina and an equestrian vaulting coach, had an O-1A
19
nonimmigrant work visa for immigrants of extraordinary ability, enabling him to work in the United
20
States lawfully. Because he wants to remain here permanently, he applied for an EB-1 visa, also
21
known as an “extraordinary ability” visa.1 The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (UCIS)
22
denied his application on the ground that the plaintiff established only two (and not the required
23
three) regulatory criteria. The plaintiff challenges that decision as arbitrary and capricious.2 The
24
parties both moved for summary judgment. The court grants the government’s motion and denies
25
26
27
28
1
Am. Compl. – ECF No. 28. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint
citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
2
Id. (¶ 2).
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 18
1
the plaintiff’s motion because the plaintiff did not establish eligibility for a third criterion by a
2
preponderance of the evidence. The agency’s action was thus not arbitrary and capricious.
3
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
4
5
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) has an employment-based immigration preference
6
— in the form of an EB-1 visa — for aliens of “extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education,
7
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim
8
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation.” 8
9
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The alien also must show that he “seeks to enter the United States to
continue work in the area of extraordinary ability” and that his “entry into the United States will
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
substantially benefit prospectively the United States.” Id. Unlike other employment-based
12
preferences, the EB-1 visa does not depend on an offer of employment in the United States, and it is
13
exempt from the requirement that employers must first look for qualified domestic workers. 8
14
C.F.R. 204.5(h)(5); Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119–20 (9th Cir. 2010).
15
“Extraordinary ability” is defined as “a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of
16
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.” 8 C.F.R. §
17
204.5(h)(2). An alien’s petition for an EB-1 visa “must be accompanied by evidence that the alien
18
has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been
19
recognized in the field of expertise.” Id. § 204.5(h)(3). “Such evidence shall include evidence of a
20
one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award), or at least three of the
21
following:
22
(i)
23
24
25
26
27
Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;
(ii) Documentation of the alien’s membership in associations in the field for which
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields;
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or
other major media, relating to the alien’s work in the field for which classification is
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and
any necessary translation;
28
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
2
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 18
(iv) Evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which
classification is sought;
(v) Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or businessrelated contributions of major significance in the field;
(vi) Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or
major trade publications or other major media;
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at artistic exhibitions or
showcases;
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or
establishments that have a distinguished reputation;
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Id. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)–(x).
12
If an alien meets his initial evidentiary burden (either that he received a “major, international
13
recognized award” or, relevantly here, satisfied three or more of the other criteria), then the USCIS
14
determines — in a “final merits determination” — whether the evidence demonstrates
15
extraordinary ability. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119–21. The agency “determines whether the
16
evidence demonstrates both a ‘level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small
17
percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor,’ and ‘that the alien has
18
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized
19
in the field of expertise.’” Id. at 1119 (cleaned up) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)–(3)).
20
21
STATEMENT
22
The plaintiff — a citizen of Argentina — has worked for over 20 years coaching equestrian
23
vaulting, which “is most often described as gymnastics and dance on horseback [and] can be
24
practiced both competitively or non-competitively.”3 The USCIS granted him an O-1A visa to
25
work in the United States as a vaulting coach.4 On July 30, 2018, the plaintiff applied for an EB-1
26
27
28
3
Administrative Record (AR) 297.
4
Am. Compl. – ECF No. 28 at 2 (¶ 2).
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
3
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 4 of 18
1
visa.5 The agency denied the application on May 3, 2019, but after the plaintiff filed this lawsuit, it
2
reopened the case and asked for more evidence before ultimately denying the plaintiff’s
3
application.6 The next sections summarize the evidence that the plaintiff submitted to the USCIS,
4
the agency decision, and the procedural history.
5
6
1. Evidence Submitted to the USCIS
The plaintiff submitted the following evidence in support of the relevant criteria under 8
7
8
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).
To support the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204(h)(3)(vii), evidence of the display of the alien’s
9
work or showcases, he provided articles and photographs from the 2010 “Virada Esportiva” in Sao
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Paolo, Brazil, a 24-hour uninterrupted sports event attended by over three million people.7
12
To support the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), evidence that the alien has performed
13
in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation,
14
he submitted (1) a letter from the co-chair of the board of directors for the Woodside Vaulters,
15
discussing the winning reputation of the organizations and the plaintiff’s critical role in coaching
16
them to success,8 and (2) a 2018 letter from Yanina Alvarez, the Chair of Vaulting Committee of
17
the Argentine Equestrian Foundation, confirming that the Foundation selected him to be the
18
team’s official lunger at the 2018 World Equestrian Games and confirming that he was the
19
National Coach at the 1994 World Games, where the teamy won fifth place.9
To support the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), evidence of the alien’s participation,
20
21
either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same field of
22
specialization for which classification is sought, he submitted (1) a letter from Yanina Alvarez
23
confirming that the plaintiff was a vaulting judge for two major vaulting competitions (one in
24
25
26
27
28
5
AR 14, 297.
6
AR 14.
7
AR 224–44.
8
AR 374–75 (letter), 376–91 (awards).
9
AR 393.
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
4
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 5 of 18
1
September 1995 and the other in November 1995), and (2) confirmation from the Argentinian
2
Equestrian Federation that that the plaintiff passed a 130-hour national vaulting-judge course.10
To support the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), documentation of the alien’s membership
3
4
in associations requiring outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or
5
international experts, the plaintiff — contending that his selection to coach the Brazilian National
6
Equestrian Vaulting and the Argentinian National Equestrian Vaulting teams were the equivalent
7
of this criterion — submitted (1) a letter from Vera Ceschin, the vaulting director for the Brazilian
8
National Equestrian Federation, stating that the plaintiff was the national coach for the Brazilian
9
vaulting team from 2000 to 2004, that position is awarded to the coach of the first-place team in
Brazil (here, the plaintiff), and during his tenure, the plaintiff’s team placed ninth at the “FEI
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
World Equestrian Games” in Spain,11 and (2) a 2020 letter from Ms. Alvarez listing the criteria for
12
selection of the national coach by the Argentinian Equestrian Federation, including certified
13
professional training, international awards, an innovative work project in the medium and long
14
term, and demonstrated leadership ability.12
To support the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), documentation of the alien’s receipt of
15
16
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence, the plaintiff
17
submitted (1) a letter from Romeu Leite, the president of a premier equestrian facility in Brazil,
18
verifying that while the plaintiff was the head vaulting coach from 2004 to 2010, his team was the
19
Brazilian national and regional champion for five years in a row,13 (2) the 2018 letter from Ms.
20
Alvarez describing how — based on his career and experience — the Federation chose the
21
plaintiff to be the team’s official lunger for 2018 World Games and confirming that he was
22
national coach for the national team in 1994, where they placed fifth at the Games,14 and (3) the
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
AR 40–46.
11
AR 58.
12
AR 59–60.
13
AR 54–57.
14
AR 393.
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
5
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 6 of 18
1
letter from Ms. Ceschin about his tenure as Brazil’s national coach from 2000 to 2004 and placed
2
ninth at the World Games.15
To support the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), published material about the alien, the
3
4
plaintiff submitted (1) an excerpt from an article in an American Vaulting Association publication
5
titled AVA Summer Camp 2011, discussing the camp and featuring “the international coaching
6
phenoms Fabian and Flavia Guida,” and (2) an excerpt from the 2012 American Vaulting
7
Association regional newsletter discussing vaulting clinics led by the plaintiff and his wife.16
To support the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), evidence of the alien’s original scientific
8
9
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance, the plaintiff
submitted a letter from Kai Vorberg, an international award-winning professional vaulter, that said
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
the following about the plaintiff’s coaching:
I do remember very clearly how [Plaintiff] was being coach and lunger of the Brazilian
team at the FEI World Equestrian Games in Jerez de la Frontera/Spain in the 2002 season.
Their freestyle was remarkable innovative showing exercises in their routine which people
in the world of vaulting have never seen before. Due to the fact that until that point Brazil
has never been a strong nation in equestrian vaulting, it was clear for all of us in the
vaulting community that there was a coach with extraordinary ability and talent and
outstanding coaching skills making his way into the international top level sport and
supporting his team to make it to the finals for the first time ever in Brazilian vaulting
history. . . . It is fair to say that the experience of having been working together with [Mr.
Guida] is still influencing my work as a coach and his advice means a lot to me even until
today. In March 2018 I have just met [Mr. Guida] again at the annual Education
Symposium of the American Vaulting Association (AVA) in Las Vegas at the South Point
Hotel and Arena from 1st until 4th of march, where I could clearly see that his influence as
a coach is already visible in his vaulters, the way they vault and the way they try to become
better athletes. Also especially with his skills as a lunger, Fabian is one of a few who
reached the top of this field in the US Vaulting Community. Even by that short period of
time, he has made significant contributions to the development of the sport of US
Equestrian Vaulting.17
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
As further evidence that he is considered to be at the top of his field, the plaintiff submitted
24
letters from other award-winning vaulting coaches and vaulting athletes attesting to his expertise:
25
26
27
28
15
AR 58.
16
AR 413–14, 416–17.
17
AR 308–09.
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
6
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 7 of 18
1
(1) Isabelle Bibbler Parker, the current Vaulting Director of performance for the U.S. Equestrian
2
Federation, an equestrian medalist, an American Vaulting Association judge, and an American
3
Vaulting Association Hall of Fame coach;18 (2) Devon Maitozo, president and founder of Free
4
Artists Creative Equestrians, with two gold medals, dozens of national titles, and a long-time
5
vaulting coach;19 (3) Megan Benjamin Gulmarin, a vaulter, a multiple medal winner at the World
6
Games, and an American Vaulting Hall of Fame recipient;20 (4) Emmy Seely, head coach at the
7
Mt. Eden Vaulting Club, Board member of the American Vaulting Association, and former
8
national and individual vaulting champion;21 (5) Priscila Botton, former coach of the Brazilian
9
national team, former member of the International Equestrian Foundation, and a member of the
Foundation’s 2013 Vaulting Judges Supervisory Panel;22 and (6) Akiko Yamazaki, a former
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
competitive equestrian, an advisory board member of the U.S. Equestrian Team Foundation, and
12
parent to two Woodside Vaulters athletes coached by the plaintiff.23
13
14
2. Agency Decision
On September 23, 2020, following its reopening of the case after the petitioner filed this
15
16
lawsuit, the agency denied the plaintiff’s application. It held that at step one, the plaintiff met two
17
of the required three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3): (1) evidence of the display of the
18
alien’s work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii); and (2)
19
evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or
20
establishments that have a distinguished reputation, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).24 In reaching its
21
decision, it determined that the plaintiff failed to establish the other regulatory criteria: (1) receipt
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
AR 428.
19
AR 433–34.
20
AR 436–38.
21
AR 440–43.
22
AR 445–46.
23
AR 448–52.
24
AR 1–3.
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
7
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 8 of 18
1
of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of
2
endeavor, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(i);25 (2) membership in associations in the field for which
3
classification is sought, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii);26 (3) published material about the alien in
4
professional or major trade publications or other major media, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii);27 (4)
5
participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an
6
allied field of specialization for which classification is sought, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv);28 and (5)
7
original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contribution of major
8
significance in the field, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).29
First, as to the plaintiff’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or
9
awards, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the agency listed the alleged prizes and awards (spanning more than
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
half a single-spaced page), said much of the documentation was not primary evidence of the
12
claimed awards (and instead was comprised of letters, documents of unknown origin, and
13
coverage from websites of unknown authority), and was not in English (and when it was, the
14
translations were not certified as required by USCIS regulations, 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3)). Also, the
15
documentation did not establish that the claimed awards were awards (e.g., whether placing fifth
16
or ninth in the World Games was an award). It said that qualifying to compete was not a prize or
17
award. For cases where the claimed award was where students and teams won competitions, the
18
record lacked evidence that the wins were “nationally or internationally recognized.” The agency
19
gave other examples of the deficiencies: the 2008 championship was shown only by a computer
20
printout, the 2009 championship was shown by a foreign blog (with no certified translation) and
21
no information about the award, and the record did not have evidence that the qualifying events
22
actually were nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. The agency notified the
23
plaintiff of the deficiencies in June 2020, advising him that he needed to provide a copy of the
24
25
26
27
28
25
AR 3–6.
26
AR 6–8.
27
AR 8–10
28
AR 11.
29
AR 11–12.
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
8
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 9 of 18
1
awards or prizes, a clear photograph of them, or a public announcement. It gave him instructions
2
on how to establish that the prices were nationally or internationally recognized (such as
3
submitting the criteria or other evidence). The plaintiff submitted some evidence (an article, the
4
letter from Mr. Leite, and the letter from Ms. Ceschin), but the agency concluded that the record
5
did not establish that an event open to international competition was a nationally or internationally
6
recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. After reviewing all of the evidence, the
7
agency concluded that the plaintiff did “not meet the plain language of the criterion.”30
8
Second, as to membership in associations, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the agency said that the
9
plaintiff’s assertion — being selected as coach of the Argentinian and Brazilian national teams
was comparable evidence that he met this criterion — was not sufficient. While “[t]he record does
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
indicate that the petitioner acted as coach for these two teams[,] . . . [it] lacks sufficient
12
documentation to suggest that his employment as a coach is comparable to membership in an
13
organization requiring outstanding achievement of their members as judged by recognized
14
national or international experts in the field.” The agency noted that “election to a national all-star
15
or Olympic team might serve as comparable evidence for evidence of membership in 8 C.F.R. §
16
204.5(h)(3)(ii) [under the applicable Adjudicator’s Field Manual, but the same section of the
17
manual provides that]. . . the petitioner should explain why it has not submitted evidence that it
18
would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as well as why the
19
evidence it has submitted is comparable to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).” In any
20
event, the agency said, the record did not establish comparable evidence of this criterion. It gave
21
him an opportunity to submit more evidence, and he submitted the Leite, Ceschin, and Alvarez
22
letters. But he did not explain “why the regulatory criteria are not applicable to his occupation . . .
23
or demonstrate[] how his evidence is comparable to the regulatory requirement.” The record also
24
lacked evidence to support his claim that he coached for teams that are the equivalent of Olympic
25
teams or that his employment as a coach was comparable to membership in an organization
26
requiring outstanding achievements. There was no corroborating evidence for the Alvarez letter
27
28
30
AR 3–6.
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
9
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 10 of 18
1
about the requirements for head coach (such as bylaws or a constitution). The record did not
2
establish any awards to the petitioner. After reviewing all of the evidence, the agency concluded
3
that the plaintiff did not “meet the plain language of the criterion.”31
Third, as to published material about the plaintiff, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the agency listed
4
the plaintiff’s submissions and found they did not meet the plain language of the criterion on
6
grounds that included the following: (1) one article was about the plaintiff but there was no
7
evidence that it was published or was major media; (2) another article did not list the author (in
8
violation of the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h), which requires the author’s name), and
9
primarily was about someone that the plaintiff trained; (3) another article similarly did not list the
10
author and was about the AVA Summer Camp, not the plaintiff; (4) another article was about the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
plaintiff and his wife, but was a short article in a regional newsletter, not a professional or trade
12
publication or other major media; (5) another article from the Vaulting website was about the
13
plaintiff, and the author was identified (albeit only by screen name), but there was no
14
documentation about the nature of the website and whether it was “commensurate with
15
professional or other major media;” (6) another article was published in 2019, after the petition
16
was filed, and in any event was not about the plaintiff; (7) the 2011 video interview by a Brazilian
17
journalist had no transcript, and the English translation of the Wikipedia page (not a reliable
18
source) was not certified in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b) and in any event shows only
19
participation in the video interview; also, there was no documentation of the interview itself, and
20
no evidence about broadcast in major media; and (8) another article also was from Wikipedia and
21
thus was not a reliable source. The agency advised the plaintiff of the issues and gave an
22
opportunity to provide more information. The plaintiff did not. Thus, the agency concluded, the
23
plaintiff did “not meet the plain language of the criterion.”32
24
Fourth, as to participation on a panel as a judge of the work of others, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the
25
agency noted that the plaintiff relied only on his resume, the Botton letter (which said only that he
26
27
28
31
AR 6–8 (cleaned up).
32
AR 8–10.
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
10
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 11 of 18
1
gave clinics in countries such as the U.S., Canada, Peru, and Argentina), and other documentation
2
about training as a vaulting judge in 1995 (without reference to the events judged). Thus, the
3
agency concluded, the plaintiff did “not meet the plain language of the criterion.”33
Fifth, as to evidence of the plaintiff’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or
4
business-related contribution of major significance in the field, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the plaintiff
6
claimed that his work met that criterion, as substantiated by the Vorberg letter, the alleged awards
7
discussed above, and certificates for lectures in 2007 and 2013. The agency said that the record
8
suggested that the plaintiff made original contributions to the field, but there was no evidence that
9
the contributions were of “major significance.” “For instance, Mr. Vorberg references the
10
[plaintiff’s] work at the 2002 [World Games], stating that their freestyle was remarkably
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
innovative, showing exercises in their routine which people in the world have never seen before,
12
but does not explain how this innovation was of significance in the field.” Similarly, the agency
13
said, the plaintiff contended that his vaulters were “top athletes,” with awards showing original
14
contributions, comparable to an Olympic sport. But, the agency said, vaulting was not
15
commensurate with an Olympic sport, and it noted that the plaintiff’s teams never placed higher
16
than fifth place. It also said at the plaintiff’s “couple of lectures at universities” were not — on the
17
record — contributions of major significance in the field. It advised the plaintiff of the deficiencies
18
and how to cure them (through, for example, documents about contributions to the field), but the
19
plaintiff did not provide new evidence. Thus, the agency concluded, the plaintiff did “not meet the
20
plain language of the criterion.”34
The agency thus determined that because the plaintiff showed only two (and not three) criteria
21
22
by a preponderance of the evidence, it would not conduct its final merits determination.
23
24
25
26
27
28
33
AR 11.
34
AR 11–12.
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
11
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 12 of 18
1
3. Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a complaint and then a first amended complaint after USCIS denied his
2
3
petition on September 23, 2020.35 The parties each moved for summary judgment.36 The court
4
held a hearing on February 11, 2021. All parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.37
5
STANDARD OF REVIEW
7
Under the APA, “[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely
8
affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to
9
judicial review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. The challenged agency action (if not made reviewable by
10
statute) must be a “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court[.]” 5
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
U.S.C. § 704; see Navajo Nation v. Dep’t of the Interior, 876 F.3d 1144, 1171 (9th Cir. 2017).
12
“The reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and
13
conclusions found to be — (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
14
accordance with law[.]” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). “‘Review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is
15
deferential[.]’” Friends of the Santa Clara River v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 887 F.3d 906, 920
16
(9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 658
17
(2007)). “[A court’s] proper role is simply to ensure that the agency made no clear error of
18
judgment that would render its action arbitrary and capricious, and [courts] require only a rational
19
connection between facts found and conclusions made by the defendant agencies.” Id. (cleaned up
20
and quotations omitted).
“Accordingly, [courts] will not vacate an agency’s decision unless the agency ‘has relied on
21
22
factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important
23
aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence
24
before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the
25
26
27
28
35
Compl. – ECF No. 1; Am. Compl. – ECF No. 28.
36
Mot. – ECF No. 31 at 16–24; Cross-Mot. – ECF No. 33 at 16–28.
37
Consents – ECF Nos. 10, 15.
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
12
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 13 of 18
1
product of agency expertise.’” Id. at 921 (cleaned up) (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders, 551
2
U.S. at 658); accord Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 510 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[Courts] are
3
not empowered to substitute [their] judgment for that of the agency.”) (quoting Citizens to
4
Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971) (cleaned up)).
5
“Nevertheless, to withstand review[,] ‘the agency must articulate a rational connection between
the facts found and the conclusions reached.’” Sierra Club, 510 F.3d at 1023 (internal brackets
7
omitted) (quoting Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 442 F.3d 1147, 1156–57 (9th Cir. 2006),
8
abrogated on other grounds by Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2009). “[Courts]
9
will defer to an agency’s decision only if it is ‘fully informed and well-considered,’ and [they] will
10
disapprove of an agency’s decision if it made ‘a clear error of judgment.’” Id. (cleaned up) (quoting
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
Save the Yaak Comm. v. Block, 840 F.2d 714, 717 (9th Cir. 1988); West v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of
12
Transp., 206 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2000)). “Furthermore, when an agency has taken action without
13
observance of the procedure required by law, that action will be set aside.” Id. (citation omitted).
14
“When a party seeks review of agency action under the APA before a district court, the district
15
judge sits as an appellate tribunal.” Herguan Univ. v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 258 F. Supp. 3d
16
1050, 1063 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (cleaned up) (quoting Rempfer v. Sharfstein, 583 F.3d 860, 865 (D.C.
17
Cir. 2009)). “In APA cases the administrative record is ‘the whole record,’ which ‘consists of all
18
documents and materials directly or indirectly considered by agency decision-makers.’” Id. at
19
1063–64 (quoting Thompson v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989); Portland
20
Audubon Soc’y v. Endangered Species Comm., 984 F.2d 1534, 1548 (9th Cir. 1993).
21
22
A motion for summary judgment may be used to seek judicial review of agency administrative
decisions. Nw. Motorcycle Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1994).
23
ANALYSIS
24
25
The plaintiff challenges the USCIS’s determination about the following regulatory criteria: (1)
26
evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of
27
others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought, 8 C.F.R. §
28
204.5(h)(3)(iv); (2) documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
13
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 14 of 18
1
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(i); (3)
2
documentation of the alien’s membership in associations in the field for which classification is
3
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii); and (4)
4
evidence of original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contribution of major
5
significance in the field, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).38 His main argument is that the agency erred — and
6
was arbitrary and capricious — because it did not apply the preponderance-of-the-evidence
7
standard when it weighed the plaintiff’s evidence.39 He does not ask for a reweighing of the
8
evidence and instead asks for a determination that the agency did not apply the appropriate
9
standard.40 The court denies summary judgment.
The plaintiff had the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
met three of the relevant criteria.41 The government does not contest that the standard is
12
preponderance of the evidence, meaning, whether the plaintiff established his claims are “more
13
likely than not.”42 Nothing in the record suggests that the agency did not apply this standard.
14
Instead, the plaintiff’s argument effectively is that the agency erred in its discounting of his
15
evidence. The issue thus is whether the agency action was arbitrary and capricious when it rejected
16
his claim that he met the four relevant regulatory criteria: (1) judge of the work of others, 8 C.F.R.
17
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv); (2) receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for
18
excellence, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(i); (3) membership in associations that require outstanding
19
achievements of their members, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii); and (4) original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
20
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).43
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
38
Pl. Reply and Opp’n – ECF No. 34 at 2.
39
Id. at 6.
40
Id.
41
Gov’t Reply – ECF No. 35 at 2.
42
Id. at 2–3.
43
Pl. Reply and Opp’n – ECF No. 34 at 6.
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
14
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 15 of 18
First, as to judge of the work of others, id. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the agency provided a detailed
1
2
explanation of the deficiencies in the plaintiff’s evidence.44 Particularly, it rejected the plaintiff’s
3
training certificate from the Argentinian Equestrian Federation and the Alvarez letter saying that the
4
plaintiff was a vaulting judge at two different events. The agency said that there were no details
5
about what event the plaintiff was judging, who he was judging, or the basis for Ms. Alvarez’s
6
knowledge of or the Federation’s authority regarding the plaintiff’s judging history.45 Cf. Buletini v.
7
INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1231 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (agency’s denial was arbitrary and capricious
8
where the plaintiff provided specific evidence that he was the chairman of a scientific council that
9
“is responsible for directing the research and scientific work that is done at the Korce Hospital and
for judging the work of all doctors engaged in such work” there). That the plaintiff may disagree
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
with the agency’s interpretation of the evidence does not make its decision arbitrary or a legal error.
12
Cf. Victorov v. Barr, No. CV 19-6948-GW-JPRx, 2020 WL 3213788, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2020)
13
(“the Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency in weighing the evidence . . . . [Its]
14
role is limited to determining if the agency considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational
15
connection between the facts found and the choice made”).
16
Second, as to receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for
17
excellence, 8 § C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the agency’s denial also was not arbitrary and capricious.
18
Among other things, the agency said that (1) there was no “primary” evidence of the awards (and
19
only letters describing receipt of awards), (2) many documents either were not in English or had
20
uncertified translations, (3) evidence of the plaintiff’s team’s placing fifth or ninth in a
21
competition or qualifying to compete in another event was not evidence of “awards,” and (4) while
22
there was evidence of awards, there was no evidence that the awards were nationally or
23
internationally recognized.46
24
25
26
27
28
44
See Statement.
45
AR 11.
46
AR 3–6.
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
15
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 16 of 18
The plaintiff contends that the agency did not consider the Leite letter (saying that he coached
1
2
the team to five national and regional champions) or an article showing the international wins by
3
the plaintiff’s students.47 To the contrary, the agency rejected the letter because the pictures of the
4
actual awards attached to the letter were illegible or had no English translations.48 The article
5
describing the students’ wins was not accompanied by the certified English translation required by
6
the regulations. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) (“Any document containing foreign language submitted to
7
USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has
8
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator’s certification that he or she is competent
9
to translate from the foreign language into English”).
The plaintiff also contends that the agency did not provide “a reason to discount” the 2007
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Gold Medal win at the CVI Latin American Vaulting Competition.49 To the contrary, the agency
12
observed that the CVI wins are “qualifying events to allow for participation in a larger competition
13
later.” But it concluded that it was unclear that those wins were “in and of themselves, nationally
14
or internationally recognized prizes or awards.”50 When the agency invited the plaintiff to cure the
15
deficiency, the plaintiff noted only that the “I” in “CVI” stands for “international.” The agency
16
determined that an event that is open to international participants does not establish its
17
international or national significance or recognition.51
Third, as to membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their
18
19
members, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the agency rejected the plaintiff’s evidence. The plaintiff’s
20
main argument is that the agency erred when it required him to first show that none of the
21
regulatory criteria applied to his field. See id. § 204.5(h)(4) (“if the above standards do not readily
22
apply to the beneficiary’s occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish
23
24
25
26
27
28
47
Mot. – ECF No. 31 at 19.
48
AR 6.
49
Pl. Reply and Opp’n – ECF No. 34 at 12.
50
AR 4, 114 (noting that CVI competitions are “vaulting competitions at which vaulters can earn
qualifying points for the next world championships. They are also a way for advanced vaulters to
experience the honor of representing their country at an international level”).
51
AR 5–6.
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
16
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 17 of 18
1
the beneficiary’s eligibility”). Instead, he contends that because the analogous O-1 visa — a
2
temporary nonimmigrant visa for a person of “extraordinary ability” — allows for comparable
3
evidence without showing that “all or a majority of the criteria” do not readily apply, the same
4
analysis should apply here.52 The plaintiff cites no authority holding that the agency must assess
5
EB-1 and O-1 visas in the same way. Moreover, as the Ninth Circuit has recognized, the EB-1 visa
6
is unique in that its recipients are “priority workers,” and the applicable regulations “regarding this
7
preference classification are extremely restrictive.” Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1120 (cleaned up). Also,
8
contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the agency explained its rejection of the Ceschin letter. It
9
noted that the plaintiff was the national coach for the Brazilian Vaulting Team (a position awarded
to the coach of the first-place team in Brazil), but the record lacked other information “to suggest
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
[that the plaintiff’s] employment as a coach was commensurate with membership in an association
12
requiring outstanding achievements.”53 The court cannot weigh the evidence in place of the
13
agency’s assessment. Cf. Victorov, 2020 WL 3213788 at *7 (agency appropriately denied EB-1
14
application where it identified deficiencies in the comparable evidence).
Fourth, as to original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of
15
16
major significance in the field, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the agency’s decision also was not
17
arbitrary and capricious. The plaintiff argues that (1) the agency prematurely conducted a final
18
merits determination by requiring him to show that his original contributions were “of major
19
significance,” and (2) the agency failed to consider the letters of recommendations he submitted.54
20
These contentions are not supported by the record. First, it is appropriate for the agency to assess
21
whether the evidence shows the plaintiff’s major significant contribution. Cf. Visinscaia v. Beers, 4
22
F. Supp. 3d 126, 134–35 (D.D.C. 2013) (at step one, the agency did not act arbitrarily when it
23
concluded that “none of the[] letters provided specific information relating to the impact of
24
25
26
27
28
52
Mot. – ECF No. 31 at 20–21 (citing USCIS, Policy Manual, vol. 6, pt. M ch. 4 (“A petitioner is not
required to show that all or a majority of the criteria does not readily apply to the beneficiary’s
occupation before USCIS will accept comparable evidence”)); Pl. Reply and Opp’n – ECF No. 34 at
13–14.
53
AR 7–8.
54
Mot. – ECF No. 31 at 23; Pl. Reply and Opp’n – ECF No. 34 at 16–17.
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
17
Case 3:20-cv-01471-LB Document 38 Filed 02/16/21 Page 18 of 18
1
[applicant’s] dance technique on the field as a whole”). Second, that the agency did not list the
2
letters of recommendation does not mean that its rejection of them is legal error. Cf. Najmabadi v.
3
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he [agency] does not have to write an exegesis on
4
every contention. What is required is merely that it consider the issues raised, and announce its
5
decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and
6
not merely reacted.”) (cleaned up). After the plaintiff submitted his application and supporting
7
letters, the agency told him that the letters “must provide as much detail as possible about [his]
8
contributions and must explain in detail how the contributions are original (not merely replicating
9
the work of others) and of major significance.”55 It also noted that statements about original
contributions that are not supported by “independent, corroborating evidence are insufficient.”56
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
The plaintiff did not address the agency’s concerns.57 In any event, the agency may reject
12
supporting letters that lack “specific evidence” about how the plaintiff’s contribution was a major
13
contribution. Cf. Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134–35.
In sum, the agency’s denial of the plaintiff’s EB-1 visa was not arbitrary and capricious.
14
15
CONCLUSION
16
The court denies the plaintiff’s motion and grants the government’s cross-motion. This
17
18
disposes of ECF No. 31 and 33.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated: February 16, 2020
21
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
55
AR 84, 104.
56
AR 104.
57
AR 12.
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01471-LB
18
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?