Guida v. Miller

Background

Fabian Ernesto Guida, a citizen of Argentina and an equestrian vaulting coach, had an O-1A temporary work visa that allowed him to work lawfully in the United States. He applied for an EB-1 employment-based visa so that he could remain in the United States permanently. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the application, finding that Guida had proved only two of the three regulatory criteria required for the visa.

Guida challenged the agency’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that it was arbitrary and capricious. Both sides moved for summary judgment, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record.

Evidence and Agency Decision

The EB-1 regulations require an applicant to show either a major internationally recognized award or at least three listed types of evidence. USCIS found that Guida satisfied two criteria: evidence that his work had been displayed at exhibitions or showcases, and evidence that he had performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations.

USCIS found that Guida had not established five other criteria. It concluded that the record did not adequately show that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized; that his coaching positions were comparable to membership in an association requiring outstanding achievement; that the published materials met the regulatory requirements; that he had judged the work of others in the relevant field; or that his original contributions were of major significance.

The agency gave Guida opportunities to address several deficiencies, including missing primary evidence, uncertified translations, insufficient information about competitions and judging events, and a lack of specific, independent evidence showing the significance of his contributions. USCIS ultimately did not conduct the later overall assessment of extraordinary ability because Guida had not met the initial requirement of proving three criteria.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Guida had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence—meaning more likely than not—that he met three criteria. The court found nothing in the record showing that USCIS failed to apply that standard. In the court’s view, Guida’s arguments mainly challenged how the agency weighed his evidence.

For the judging criterion, the court found that USCIS reasonably identified missing details about the events Guida judged, the people he judged, and the basis for the supporting letter. For the awards criterion, the court found reasonable the agency’s concerns about the lack of primary evidence, uncertified translations, and the absence of proof that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized.

For the membership criterion, the court held that USCIS reasonably found that Guida had not shown that his coaching positions were comparable to membership in an association requiring outstanding achievement. For the contributions criterion, the court held that the agency reasonably required specific evidence showing that Guida’s original work had major significance. The court also rejected the argument that the agency acted unlawfully by not separately listing or discussing every recommendation letter.

Disposition

The court concluded that USCIS’s denial of Guida’s EB-1 application was not arbitrary and capricious. It denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The order disposed of ECF Nos. 31 and 33.