Han v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
1:24-cv-01221
| S.D.N.Y. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Xueyan Han, a Chinese citizen residing in New York, applied for an "extraordinary ability" (EB-1A) immigrant visa based on achievements in finance.
- Han's application was filed with USCIS in December 2020, relying on evidence to satisfy eight of the ten regulatory criteria (excluding a major one-time achievement).
- USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) after finding the initial evidence insufficient; Han responded, supporting six factors with additional and some duplicative evidence.
- In December 2023, USCIS denied Han's visa petition, finding he did not satisfy any of the six claimed criteria and that, overall, he had not established extraordinary ability.
- Han did not appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office, but instead filed a complaint in federal court, alleging that USCIS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USCIS failed to address submitted evidence for Factor II (association membership requiring outstanding achievements) | Han submitted a response to RFE with evidence | USCIS claimed Han provided no RFE response | USCIS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious |
| Whether USCIS failed to address Han’s supplementary evidence for Factor VIII (leading/critical roles in major organizations) | Han offered new evidence regarding Hanfor Holdings | USCIS ignored new evidence, claimed no response | USCIS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious |
| Whether USCIS failed to address published material (Factor III) submitted in response to the RFE | Han provided additional articles & details | USCIS said no additional evidence was submitted | USCIS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious |
| Whether USCIS’s overall conclusion that Han lacked extraordinary ability was sufficiently reasoned | USCIS’s conclusions were conclusory and lacked real reasoning | Government relied on original reasoning | USCIS’s conclusion was arbitrary and capricious |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (sets the standard for evaluating arbitrary and capricious agency action)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (remand is appropriate when the agency record lacks necessary support)
- Zhao v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 265 F.3d 83 (agency must provide rational explanation and reasoning for denials)
- Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391 (courts do not independently reweigh agency evidence in APA cases)
- Rubin v. Miller, 478 F. Supp. 3d 499 (burden of proof on petitioner and standard for reviewing APA claims)