Ran Rubin v. Loren K. Miller

Background

Plaintiffs CTRL-labs, Inc. and Dr. Ran Rubin brought the action under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Rubin, a computational neuroscientist and Israeli national, sought employment-based immigrant classification for people with extraordinary ability in the sciences. He was employed as a lead scientist at CTRL, where he led algorithmic research and development involving two-dimensional neural control.

Rubin submitted evidence including expert opinion letters, peer-reviewed publications, a book chapter, citation information, conference presentations, and awards. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) acknowledged that he satisfied two evidentiary criteria: authorship of scholarly articles and judging the work of others. USCIS denied the petition after finding that Rubin had not satisfied a third criterion, including the criteria concerning original contributions of major significance and a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization.

The plaintiffs sought to set aside the denial as arbitrary and capricious. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record.

Legal Standard

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a court must set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful. The agency must provide a satisfactory explanation and a rational connection between the facts it found and the decision it made.

For the employment-based classification at issue, USCIS applies a two-step process. First, the applicant must satisfy at least three specified evidentiary criteria, unless the applicant has a qualifying one-time major international award. Second, USCIS must decide whether the applicant has reached the very top of the field, has sustained national or international acclaim, and has received recognition for those achievements.

Analysis

The court held that USCIS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in rejecting Rubin’s evidence of original scientific contributions of major significance. The agency did not reasonably explain why evidence created before the petition should receive greater weight than later-submitted expert letters. The court also found that USCIS’s statement that the letters lacked specific information about the importance and impact of Rubin’s research was contrary to the record.

The opinion discussed detailed statements from neuroscience experts describing Rubin’s work on the tempotron model, neural learning, information processing, and spike-timing computation. The court found that USCIS did not adequately explain why those statements were conclusory or insufficient. Considering the evidence as a whole, the court concluded that Rubin had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he made original research contributions of major significance.

The court also held that USCIS abused its discretion in rejecting evidence that Rubin performed a leading or critical role at CTRL. USCIS improperly treated the relevant question as whether Rubin’s role was critical to the entire organization rather than to a department or component. The decision also failed to address evidence that Rubin created foundational algorithms for CTRL’s two-dimensional neural-control technology and that this work was central to the company’s business strategy and long-term plans.

Because USCIS had concluded that Rubin failed to satisfy the initial evidentiary threshold, it had not conducted the separate final merits review. The court declined to decide that final issue itself and held that USCIS should make the determination in the first instance. The court directed USCIS to consider the evidence, including expert letters describing Rubin’s standing and accomplishments, when deciding whether he has sustained national or international acclaim or is among the small percentage of neuroscientists who have reached the top of the field.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied summary judgment to defendants. The case was remanded to USCIS for a final merits determination consistent with the opinion. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 23 and 26.