Noroozi v. Napolitano
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162835
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Noroozi, an Iranian table-tennis player, and Assadi, an immigration attorney, petition CIS for an EB-1 extraordinary ability visa in 2010 and 2011; CIS denied the second petition.
- Defendants are DHS Secretary Napolitano, Attorney General Holder, U.S. Attorney Bharara, CIS Director Mayorkas, and CIS Texas Service Center Director Roark, sued in official capacities.
- The statutory standard for EB-1 extraordinary ability requires proof of three criteria from § 204.5(h)(3) or evidence of a one-time major international award, plus intent to continue work in the field and that entry would benefit the United States.
- Noroozi initially obtained approval in 2010 under a pre-Kazarian process; Kazarian v. USCIS in 2010 required a two-step Kazarian framework separating assessment of criteria from a totality-of-evidence final merits review.
- CIS implemented the two-step Kazarian framework in August 2010 and subsequently revoked Noroozi’s visa in 2011 after applying the new methodology.
- Noroozi filed this APA action seeking declaratory relief and readjudication favorable to him; the court now grants the Government’s summary judgment motion based on the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CIS adequately explained its change in position. | Noroozi argues CIS failed to justify its reversal after Kazarian. | The Government contends Glara Fashion does not govern here and provides a rational Kazarian-based justification. | CIS adequately explained its change in position under Kazarian framework. |
| Whether CIS's denial was arbitrary or capricious given the evidence. | Noroozi contends the agency errored by not recognizing leading/critical role and published material criteria. | CIS’s determinations were supported by substantial evidence and the two-step analysis properly applied. | Denial was not arbitrary or capricious; supported by substantial evidence and proper methodology. |
| Whether CIS relied on irrelevant factors or bad faith. | Noroozi claims association with Assadi and alleged Iranian-origin discrimination show bad faith. | Cable evidence is not part of the record; no strong showing of bad faith or discrimination is shown. | No bad-faith or discriminatory conduct established; record supports denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kazarian v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Servs., 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir.2010) (requires a two-step approach separating criteria from final merits)
- Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139 (1st Cir.2007) (agency may change course when prior determination misapplied the law)
- Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.2006) (arbitrary and capricious review standards and agencies must have rational explanation)
- Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7 (2d Cir.1997) (administrative record limits; review is on record presented)
- American Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 269 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir.2001) (arbitrary and capricious standard; need rational explanation)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard requires reasoned decision-making)
- Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391 (2d Cir.2005) (consideration of relevant evidence and proper analysis in agency decisions)
- Wu Biao Chen v. INS, 344 F.3d 272 (2d Cir.2003) (evidence and credibility considerations in immigration adjudication)
- Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7 (2d Cir.1997) (administrative record-based judicial review)
- Quan Mei Chen v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 251 F.App’x 18 (2d Cir.2007) (appellate level discussion on evidentiary standards in agency determinations)