Arbor Home, LLC v. Mayorkas
604 F.Supp.3d 878
N.D. Cal.2022Background
- Arbor Home filed Form I-129 seeking O-1A classification for its CEO, Farshad Taheri (an Iranian national and company founder), to work in the U.S.; company was small and proposed a three-year engagement.
- USCIS initially denied the petition, plaintiffs sued, and USCIS reopened the file, issued a NOID, plaintiffs supplemented the record, and USCIS issued a new denial on August 4, 2021 based on the final merits determination.
- In the second adjudication USCIS found Taheri met three regulatory criteria (published material, judging the work of others, and high salary) but concluded the totality of the evidence did not show extraordinary ability or that he is among the very top few percent in his field.
- Plaintiffs challenged the denial in district court; both sides moved for summary judgment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The court applied the Kazarian two-step framework (threshold criteria then final merits), reviewed the agency record under arbitrary-and-capricious standards, and granted the Government’s motion while denying Plaintiffs’ motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should review USCIS’s first denial | The first denial was erroneous and provides context; should be considered | First denial was voided when USCIS reopened and issued a new NOID/denial; only final agency action is reviewable | Court declined to review the first denial except as background (first denial not before the Court) |
| Evidentiary standard applied by USCIS | USCIS applied an impermissibly high standard above preponderance | USCIS expressly applied preponderance and evaluated relevance, probative value, credibility | Court held USCIS applied the correct preponderance standard; no higher burden found |
| Applicability of Kazarian two-step framework to O-1 petitions | Kazarian governed I-140 EB petitions, not O-1, so meeting three criteria should be dispositive | Kazarian’s two-step analysis applies to extraordinary-ability adjudications generally; regulatory scheme is similar | Court applied Kazarian to O-1 adjudication and rejected plaintiffs’ claim that meeting three criteria is conclusive |
| Whether USCIS’s final merits denial was arbitrary and capricious | Plaintiffs argued USCIS ignored/summarized evidence and used boilerplate reasoning | USCIS considered supplemental evidence, explained its probative weight (e.g., IDIRAN award lacked context), and gave reasoned conclusions | Court found the final merits denial supported by reasoned analysis and was not arbitrary and capricious; Government summary judgment granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Kazarian v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (articulates two-step threshold criteria then final-merits framework for extraordinary-ability adjudications)
- Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383 (5th Cir. 2022) (approving application of Kazarian two-step framework to extraordinary-ability review)
- Mott Thoroughbred Stables, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 87 F. Supp. 3d 237 (D.D.C. 2015) (agency may correct prior adjudications and denial of latest petition is reviewable)
- FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 141 S. Ct. 1150 (2021) (courts ensure agency action falls within a zone of reasonableness under arbitrary-and-capricious review)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (courts must determine whether agency considered relevant factors and avoided clear error of judgment)
- Occidental Eng’g Co. v. INS, 753 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1985) (summary judgment is appropriate mechanism to review agency factual findings under APA)
- Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2003) (agency findings upheld unless evidence would compel a reasonable factfinder to reach a contrary result)