Han v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Background

Xueyan Han brought an action under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that allows courts to review certain agency decisions. Han challenged United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) denial of his petition for an employment-based visa for a person with “extraordinary ability” in finance.

The applicable visa category requires an applicant to show sustained national or international acclaim and recognition of achievements in the field. An applicant may qualify by showing one major international award or by satisfying at least three of ten regulatory criteria, followed by a review of the entire record. Han pursued the second route. He initially submitted evidence addressing eight criteria and later relied on six criteria in response to USCIS’s request for additional evidence.

USCIS denied the petition on December 26, 2023. It found that Han had satisfied none of the six criteria he continued to assert and that the totality of the evidence did not show that he had reached the top of his field. Han did not challenge USCIS’s conclusions concerning two of the criteria. He instead challenged the agency’s treatment of four criteria and its overall assessment.

Summary-Judgment Motions and Standard of Review

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a legal dispute when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact. In reviewing agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, the court applied the requirement that agency action not be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful. The court explained that an agency must give a reasoned explanation based on the record and must consider the important evidence before it.

The Challenged Criteria

The court found that USCIS acted arbitrarily and capriciously as to three of the four disputed criteria.

For Factor II, concerning membership in associations that require outstanding achievements, USCIS stated that Han had not addressed the criterion in his response to the request for evidence. The court found that statement inaccurate because Han had submitted a narrative response and supporting evidence. USCIS did not meaningfully address the initial petition or the response, leaving the court unable to review the agency’s reasoning. The court therefore found USCIS’s decision on Factor II arbitrary and capricious, without deciding whether Han actually satisfied the criterion.

For Factor VIII, concerning a leading or critical role in organizations with distinguished reputations, Han submitted evidence concerning the Beijing Private Equity Association, the China Enterprises Investment Association, and Hanfor Holdings. The court found that USCIS failed to address Han’s response concerning Hanfor Holdings and again inaccurately stated that Han had not addressed the criterion. The court rejected USCIS’s argument that this omission was harmless and found the decision on Factor VIII arbitrary and capricious.

For Factor III, concerning published material about Han and his work, USCIS again stated that Han had not addressed the criterion and had submitted no additional evidence. The court found that Han had submitted another article and a narrative discussing the reputation and circulation of the publications. Because USCIS did not meaningfully address that material, the court found the decision on Factor III arbitrary and capricious.

The court did not decide whether USCIS’s treatment of Factor V, concerning original contributions of major significance, was arbitrary and capricious. It concluded that the errors concerning three other criteria were sufficient to require a remand.

Overall Assessment

USCIS also concluded that Han had not shown that he was among the small percentage of people at the top of his field. The court found that this conclusion merely repeated the governing legal standard and provided no additional explanation. It therefore found USCIS’s second-step analysis arbitrary and capricious as well.

Disposition

The court granted Han’s motion for summary judgment, denied USCIS’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case to USCIS for further review and a final determination. The court did not order USCIS to grant the visa or decide that Han met the visa requirements. The Clerk was directed to close the two summary-judgment motions and the case.