Jafarov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Background

Dr. Jafar Jafarov brought this action against United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and related federal officials. He sought review under the Administrative Procedure Act of USCIS’s decision denying his petition for an employment-based “extraordinary ability” visa. He also sought a declaration and an order directing the defendants to grant the visa.

Jafarov petitioned USCIS in November 2022, claiming extraordinary ability in computer science and applied mathematics, particularly machine learning. His evidence included awards from high-school mathematics and science competitions, newspaper articles about him and his work, scholarly publications, expert statements, peer reviews, and compensation consisting of a $168,000 salary and a $75,000 signing bonus. He claimed that he satisfied six of the ten regulatory criteria used at the first stage of the visa process.

USCIS initially found that Jafarov satisfied two criteria: judging the work of others and authorship of scholarly articles. After he submitted more evidence, USCIS found that he also satisfied the high-salary criterion. USCIS nevertheless found that he did not satisfy the criteria concerning recognized awards, published material in major media, or original contributions of major significance. USCIS then conducted the required final merits review and concluded that the record did not show that Jafarov had sustained national or international acclaim or had risen to the very top of his field.

Legal standard

The court reviewed the final agency decision under the Administrative Procedure Act’s deferential standard. Under that standard, a court may set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unsupported by substantial evidence. The court explained that its role was not to reweigh the evidence or decide whether it would have reached the same conclusion as USCIS. Instead, it had to determine whether USCIS examined the relevant information and gave a reasonable explanation connecting the evidence to its decision.

First-stage criteria

The court upheld USCIS’s treatment of Jafarov’s awards. His bronze medals at Azerbaijan’s National Science Olympiad and honorable mention at the International Mathematical Olympiad were earned in competitions for high-school students. The court held that USCIS reasonably concluded that these awards did not recognize excellence in Jafarov’s professional field, and that the honorable mention could reasonably be viewed as insufficient evidence of individual excellence.

The court also upheld USCIS’s conclusion that Jafarov had not shown that the newspapers publishing articles about him were “major media.” Although the articles concerned Jafarov and his work, he did not provide objective information about their circulation or readership. The court found that USCIS reasonably determined that general claims about the publications’ national importance and awards received by some journalists were not enough.

As to Jafarov’s research, the court held that USCIS reasonably concluded that the evidence did not establish contributions of major significance. The expert statements largely described Jafarov’s promise and potential in general terms, while his work had received 19 citations when he filed the petition. The court rejected Jafarov’s request that it reweigh this evidence, explaining that this was USCIS’s role rather than the court’s.

Final merits determination

The court upheld USCIS’s overall conclusion that Jafarov had not shown extraordinary ability. USCIS reasonably considered the significance of his publications at the final stage, where it had to evaluate the totality of the evidence. The court also found reasonable USCIS’s focus on Jafarov’s record of six publications from 2015 through 2022 and the lack of evidence showing sustained acclaim.

The court held that USCIS reasonably treated Jafarov’s compensation as insufficient to establish that he was at the very top of his field. Although his compensation placed him above the 90th percentile of computer scientists in the submitted data, USCIS credited that evidence for the salary criterion without concluding that it proved extraordinary ability or sustained acclaim.

The Government acknowledged that USCIS had mistakenly credited Jafarov with three peer reviews rather than 15. The court found that error harmless because USCIS had already credited his participation in judging others and because the additional reviews would not establish sustained acclaim. The court therefore found no basis to send the matter back to USCIS.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Jafarov’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Government’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court also denied Jafarov’s request for declaratory judgment because the record did not establish a right that was being or was likely to be infringed. The Clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of the defendants, and close the case.