Amin v. Mayorkas
24 F.4th 383
5th Cir.2022Background:
- Bhaveshkumar Amin, a Canadian chemical engineer, applied for an EB-1A "extraordinary ability" immigrant classification in January 2020, claiming four of the ten regulatory criteria.
- USCIS initially denied (crediting only one criterion); after Amin sued and USCIS reconsidered, the agency found three criteria met but denied on the merits for lack of "major significance" and sustained national/international acclaim.
- Amin sued under the Administrative Procedure Act; the district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment. Amin appealed.
- Threshold dispute: whether Amin was required to exhaust administrative appeals to USCIS's appeals unit (the regulation states a denial "shall be appealable").
- Amin also challenged USCIS’s 2010 Policy Memorandum (Adjudicator’s Field Manual amendment) implementing a two-step review (criteria check, then final merits determination), arguing it conflicts with the regulation and required notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed jurisdiction, the procedural validity of the Policy Memo, and the substantive arbitrary-and-capricious challenge to USCIS’s evidentiary and final-merits determinations.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether administrative appeal to USCIS was mandatory before judicial review | Amin did not appeal and contended judicial review should proceed; the regulation’s wording does not mandate exhaustion | The regulation’s "shall be appealable" requires exhaustion before suit | "Shall be appealable" is permissive, not mandatory; court had jurisdiction to hear the suit |
| Validity of USCIS Policy Memo / two-step framework | Memo conflicts with reg: meeting 3 criteria shifts burden and entitles applicant to approval; memo also required notice-and-comment | Memo is interpretive guidance that clarifies adjudication order and is consistent with statute/regulation; no notice-and-comment required | Memo is consistent with statute/reg and is interpretive (procedural); notice-and-comment not required |
| Whether Amin proved criterion (v): original contributions of major significance | Amin argued his portable sulfur unit, modular well pads, and a walking drill rig were major field-significant contributions | USCIS said evidence shows impact mainly within employers; little or no industry adoption beyond employer use | Agency reasonably weighed evidence and did not act arbitrarily; criterion (v) not satisfied |
| Whether Amin demonstrated "extraordinary ability" (sustained national/international acclaim) | Amin argued his three proven criteria (leadership, high salary, peer review) established extraordinary ability | USCIS argued meeting criteria is only initial step; final merits requires sustained acclaim and the agency reasonably found it lacking | Agency reasonably concluded Amin lacks the sustained national/international acclaim required; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (articulating two-step EB-1A adjudication: regulatory criteria then final merits determination)
- Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993) (APA judicial-review limitations and exhaustion principles)
- Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard requires rational connection between facts and decision)
- Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) (limits and conditions for deferring to agency interpretations of ambiguous regulations)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (deference to agency interpretations of its own rules)
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (1997) (statutory language must be read in its specific context)
- Visincaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding agency denial where evidence failed to show field-wide impact under criterion five)
- Fritiofson v. Alexander, 772 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1985) (agency actions arbitrary if they completely fail to consider important evidence)