Cuckic v. Jaddou

Background

Milica Cuckic, who had been residing legally in the United States temporarily as an O-1 nonimmigrant worker, filed an immigrant petition seeking EB-1 status as an “Audio Fingerprinting Specialist.” The EB-1 category at issue is available to people who demonstrate extraordinary ability in fields including science, the arts, education, business, or athletics, and who seek to continue working in that field in the United States.

Cuckic did not rely on a single major internationally recognized award. Instead, she sought to satisfy at least three of ten regulatory criteria. She submitted evidence concerning five criteria: membership in qualifying associations, published material, judging others’ work, display of her work, and a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations.

The immigration agency first denied the petition in July 2021, but later reopened the adjudication and requested additional evidence. It denied the petition again in February 2022, finding that Cuckic had satisfied only the publication and judging criteria. Cuckic then amended her lawsuit, challenging the denial under the Administrative Procedure Act and seeking an order requiring the agency to accept the petition.

Legal standard

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In an Administrative Procedure Act case, summary judgment is generally appropriate because the court reviews the agency’s decision based on the administrative record and decides whether the agency acted lawfully.

The court applied the highly deferential “arbitrary and capricious” standard. Under that standard, a court may reject agency action if the agency relied on improper factors, ignored an important part of the problem, gave an explanation contrary to the evidence, or reached an implausible result. The court may not independently reweigh the record or substitute its judgment for the agency’s.

Court’s analysis

The court said the parties agreed that Cuckic had to satisfy at least three criteria because she had not claimed a single major award, and that she had satisfied two criteria. The only issue properly before the court was whether the agency acted arbitrarily by rejecting Cuckic’s evidence under the criterion concerning a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with distinguished reputations.

The court concluded that the agency acted reasonably. It explained that Cuckic’s application was based on her specialized work in audio fingerprinting, not on general success in the music-recording industry. The court therefore found that much of the evidence and argument concerning her broader music-industry experience did not address the specific basis of her application.

The agency had requested additional evidence showing that Cuckic’s employers, Wind-Up and BMAT, had distinguished reputations. Cuckic did not provide that evidence. The court also noted that her evidence about BMAT came primarily from BMAT itself, including its website, and that the agency’s rules treated promotional material created by an organization about itself as insufficient for this purpose. The court held that the agency reasonably found Cuckic had not met her burden.

Disposition

The court concluded that the Government agency’s action was not arbitrary and capricious or otherwise unlawful. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and Cuckic’s motion for summary judgment was denied. The clerk was directed to close the motions and the case.