# HAMPAPUR VENKATNARAYAN v. JADDOU

> District Court, M.D. North Carolina · August 30, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10653762

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** August 30, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10653762

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

)
DR. RAGHAV HAMPAPUR )
VENKATNARAYAN, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Case No. 1:23CV256
)
v. )
)
UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Director of __)
United States Citizenship and )
Immigration Services, )
)
Defendant. )
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Raghav Hampapur Venkatnarayan, Ph.D. (hereinafter “Plaintiff’), brought
this action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), to
obtain judicial review of a final decision of the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (hereinafter “USCIS” or “agency’), denying his application for an employment-based
immigrant visa as an alien of “extraordinary ability’ under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The
Parties have filed cross-motions for summaty judgment, and the administrative record has
been filed with the Court for review. For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes
that the agency reasonably considered the relevant issues and reasonably explained its decision,
and Plaintiff has failed to show that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious of an
abuse of discretion. .

L PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff is a native of India who entered the United States on an F1 student visa and
eatned a Ph.D. in Computer Science from North Carolina State University in 2019. He began
work in 2021 as a machine learning engineer for Entefy, Inc. On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff
filed an application with the USCIS for an employment-based immigrant visa, seeking to be
classified as an alien with extraordinary ability under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). (Tr. at 2, 8, 328
[Doc. #13 at 2, 6; Doc. #13-7 at 3].)! In support of the application, Plaintiff relied on his
“contributions to witeless human activity sensing, ambient light sensing, position tracking for
augmented reality and device-free indoor location sensing.” (T't at 346 [Doc. #13-7 at 21].)?
After the agency sent Plaintiff a request for additional evidence in relation to his application
(Tr. at 13-18 [Doc. #13 at 13-18}), Plaintiff filed supplemental supporting documents. The
USCIS denied Plaintiff's application on February 21, 2023. (T't. at 1-6 [Doc. #13 at 1-6].)
Plaintiff did not seek internal agency review of the decision, thereby making the February 21,

1 Defendant filed the administrative record in thirteen separately-paginated documents on ECF [Doc. #13 &
Attachs.]. However, both Parties cite to the administrative record as a consistently-paginated whole. The Court
will do so as well. Citations to “Tr.” followed by page numbers refer to the PDF page numbers of the
administrative record [Doc. #13 & Attachs.] when combined into one document.
? Specifically, Plaintiff pointed to his research and publications regarding “[mlulti-user gesture recognition using
WiFi” in 2018 and 2019, “[g]esture recognition using ambient light” in 2018 and 2020, “enhancing indoor
inertial odometry with WiF1” in 2019, and “[lJeveraging WiFi signal polarization to simultaneously track multiple
people” in 2020. (T'r at 351-56 [Doc. #13-7 at 26-31.)

2023, denial the agency’s final decision for purposes of judicial review. (I't. at 1 [Doc. #13 at
1].)
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A. APA Review
Final denials of extraordinary-ability visas ate judicially reviewable under the APA.
5 US.C. § 704; Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 389-90 (5th Cir. 2022). However, judicial
teview under the APA is narrow and highly deferential. A reviewing court may “hold unlawful
and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an
abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors
which Congtess has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an
important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that
runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could
not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.
Review under this standard is highly deferential, with a presumption in favor of
finding the agency action valid.
Appalachian Voices v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 25 F.4th 259, 269 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal
quotations omitted). As noted by the Supreme Court:
The APA’s atbitrary-and-capricious standard requites that agency action be
reasonable and reasonably explained. Judicial review under that standard is
deferential, and a court may not substitute its own policy judgment for that of
the agency. A court simply ensures that the agency has acted within a zone of
reasonableness and, in particular, has reasonably considered the relevant issues
and reasonably explained the decision.
Fed. Comme’ns Comm’n v. Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U.S. 414, 423 (2021). Cross-
motions for summaty judgment provide the mechanism for undertaking this analysis based

on teview of the administrative record.

B. Employment-Based Immigrant Visas
The allocation of immigrant visas is statutorily controlled by 8 U.S.C. § 1153. In
addition to allocating visas based on family ties and a limited nation-of-origin diversity lottery,
8 U.S.C. § 1153(a), (c), the statute also allocates visas based on employment, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b).
Within the employment-based category of visas, there ate various categories and preferences.
The first preference includes aliens with “extraordinary ability,” outstanding professors and
reseatchers, and certain multinational executives and managers, id. § 1153(b)(1), while the
second preferences include aliens who ate members of the professions holding advanced
degtees, and aliens of “exceptional ability,” id. § 1153(b)(2), and the third preference includes
other skilled workers and professionals, id. § 1153(b)(3). See Kazartian v. U.S. Citizenship &
Immigr. Servs., 596 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010).
In this case, Plaintiff did not apply for a visa as an outstanding researcher, or as

someone with “exceptional ability.” Instead, Plaintiff applied for a first preference visa as an
alien of “extraordinary ability.” An alien with extraordinary ability is one who “has
exttaordinaty ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have
been recognized in the field through extensive documentation.” 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)()(A)@.
An applicant who seeks such a visa bears the burden of establishing that he is eligible for the
requested benefit. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). An applicant who carries this burden may receive a
visa that permits him to live and work in the United States, regardless of whether he has a

current employment offer and regardless of whether his employment will have an impact on
the domestic labor market. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5).?
An applicant seeking an extraordinary-ability visa must present evidence that he “has
sustained national or international acclaim” and that his “achievements have been recognized
in the field of expertise.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)3). An applicant can meet this evidentiary
threshold by either presenting “evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major,
international recognized award)” such as the Nobel Prize, or by presenting evidence in at least
three of ten regulatorily-defined categories. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(«); Kazarian, 596 F.3d
at 1119; Mishra v. Richardson, No. 1:20-cv-991 (LMB/TCB), 2021 WL 1566071, at *1 (B.D.
Va. Apr. 20, 2021). Those ten categories require:
(1) Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of
endeavot;
(ii) | Documentation of the alien’s membership in associations in the field for
which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements
of their members, as judged by recognized national or international
experts in their disciplines or fields;
(iit) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade
publications or other major media, relating to the alien’s work in the field
fot which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title,
date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation;
(iv) | Evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as
a judge of the work of others in the same ot an allied field of specification
for which classification is sought;

3 Other forms of employment-based visas may requite the applicant to have a job offer from an employer in
the United States unless waived in the national interest, and may also require a certification from the
Department of Labor that “there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified[, and] available” to
perform the work and that the applicant’s employment would “not adversely affect the wages and working
conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b)(1)(B)-(©), (b)(2)(A),
1182(a)(5)(A); 8 CER. § 204.5a)(2), OB)@), OE) HC), OM).

(v) Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, ot
business-related contributions of major significance in the field;
(vi) | Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in
professional or major trade publications or other major media;
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at artistic
exhibitions or showcases;
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for
otganizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation;
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other
significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the
field; or
(x) | Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by
box office receipts ot record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales.
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h) (3).
In evaluating applications for exttaordinary-ability visas where an applicant has not
ptesented evidence of a major one-time achievement, the USCIS goes through a two-step
ptocess. First, it makes a threshold evidentiary determination on whether an applicant has

come forward with enough evidence to satisfy three of the ten categories under 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3). Ifan applicant cannot ultimately satisfy this evidentiary requirement, the analysis
stops and the application is denied. If an applicant has satisfied this evidentiary requirement,
the agency then goes on to determine, based on the proffered evidence, whether the applicant
“4s one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor,” 8
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and in fact “has sustained national or international acclaim and that his

ot her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(3);
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1117; accord Mishra, 2021 WL 1566071, at *1.

I. DISCUSSION
In the present case, the USCIS found that Plaintiff had not presented evidence that he
had received a “major, internationally recognized prize or award.” (Tr. at 3 [Doc. #13 at 3].)
Therefore, the agency went on to consider whether Plaintiff had “fulfilled at least three of the
ten criteria listed in the regulations.” (Ir. at 3 [Doc. #13 at 3].) Plaintiff argued that he could
fulfill the following three criteria:
(iv) Evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as a
judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification
for which classification is sought;
(v) Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or
business-related contributions of major significance in the field; [and]
(vi) Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in
professional or major trade publications or other major media.
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h) (3) (v)- (vi).
The agency found that Plaintiff had submitted evidence of two of these criteria: (1) his
participation as a judge of the work of others in the same field (T't. at 3 [Doc. #13 at 3]), which
Plaintiff based on his work as a peer-reviewet on “at least 10 reviews for journals and
conference proceedings” (Tr. at 344 [Doc. #13-7 at 19]) and (2) his authorship of scholarly
atticles in the field (Tr. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5]), which Plaintiff based on his “14 peer-reviewed
scientific articles” (Tr. at 358 [Doc. #13-17 at 33}).
However, the agency found that Plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence of his
otiginal scientific contributions of major significance. (Tr. at 3-5 [Doc. #13 at 3-5].) With
respect to this criterion, the agency noted that “[t]he plain language of this criterion requires
evidence (1) of the Petitioner’s contributions related to scientific, scholarly, artistic or business

fields, (2) that the Petitioner’s contribution is original, and (3) that the Petitioner’s original
contribution has been of major significance.” (Tr. at 3 [Doc. #13 at 3}.)
The agency recognized that Plaintiff “worked on projects and conducted research
which has been published,” and noted that, despite Plaintiff's direct reference to only fourteen
publications, the record actually contained “16 sources attributed to” Plaintiff, some of which

“published in major or high-ranking journals.” (Tr. at 4 [Doc. #13 at 4].) The agency
also noted that these publications had resulted in over 200 citations to Plaintiffs work. (Tt.
at 4 [Doc. #13 at 4].) The agency further acknowledged that Plaintiff had submitted
“corroborating evidence in the form of opinion letters from experts in the field,”
“documentation about a patent on which the petitioner is listed as co-author,” proof that
Plaintiffs work had been “funded by vatious agencies,” and evidence of Plaintiff's “peer-
teview service to journals.” (Tt. at 4-5 [Doc. #13 at 4-5].) However, the agency found that
this submitted evidence did not meet the regulatory criterion of showing that Plaintiffs
otiginal scientific contributions were of major significance. (Tt. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5].)
The agency stressed that there was a regulatory distinction between works that were
merely “original” and those that were also of “major significance.” (Tt. at 3 [Doc. #13 at 3]
(citing APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir. 2003); Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Inv.
Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3d Cit. 1995)).) Thus, evidence of original work would not
necessatily also be evidence that the work was of major significance. (Tr. at 3-4 [Doc. #13 at
3-4].) The agency concluded that the evidence reflected that Plaintiff was “a research
professional in the field” and had “made original contributions,” but “the record does not

establish that the work has had a remarkable impact or influence in the field.” (Tr. at 5 [Doc.
#13 at 5].)
The agency first considered Plaintiffs publications. With respect to the publications,
the agency noted that the publication of Plaintiffs research was evidence of originality, but
further found that “the publications cannot be considered influential if the evidence does not
show that they have been of major significance or have had a major breakthrough in the field

whole.” (Tr. at 4 [Doc. #13 at 4].) The agency found that the record did not demonstrate
that the publications had “provoked a level of commentary or generated a degree of attention
that meets the major significance threshold.” (Tr. at 4 [Doc. #13 at 4].) Similarly, the agency
stated that merely being published in “high-ranking journals,” does not in turn necessarily
“show an authot’s influence ot the impact of the petitioner’s research on the field.” (Tr. at 4
[Doc. #13 at 4].)
The agency also considered Plaintiffs evidence of his citation statistics, that is, the
number of other articles that cited his articles. However, the agency noted that citation
numbers compared to a baseline average—without reference to how many citations were self-
citations or citations by co-authors, and without reference to the weight to which any single
soutce telied on Plaintiff's work in its citatton—told the agency very little about whether these
citations wete indicative of a contribution of major significance, and did not provide sufficient
context to determine the impact or importance of the work. (Tr. at 4 [Doc. #13 at 4].) Even
when reviewing examples of articles that had cited Plaintiffs work, the agency noted that
“there is no evidence distinguishing the petitioner’s work from all the other works cited in the
atticles to show the major significance of the petitionet’s work.” (T't. at 4 [Doc. #13 at 4].)

Thus, a mere collection of many citations did not, without further explanation, show that
Plaintiffs work was of major significance, and the evidence presented did not reflect that the
publications provoked “widespread commentary” or received notice for others “at a level
consistent with contributions of major significance in the field.” (Tr. at 4 [Doc. #13 at 4].)
The agency next considered Plaintiffs supporting letters from “experts in the field
including Dr. S. Munir, Dr. S Yun, and Dr. E. Bulut.” (T'r. at 4 [Doc. #13 at 4].) Even before
making its decision, the agency alerted Plaintiff in a Request for Evidence that:
The submitted expert testimonial letters describe the petitioner’s work in
technical details and provide insight into some of the petitioner’s projects.
Though the letters compliment the various aspects of the petitionet’s work, they
do not sufficiently establish that the petitioner made contributions of major
significance in the field. Please note that scientific contributions should have a
major significance, ot major breakthrough in the field of endeavor as a whole.
Letters by experts ate helpful; however, the major significance of the
Petitioner’s contribution must be demonstrated by pre-existing, independent,
and objective evidence. USCIS may, in its discretion, use such letters as advisory
opinions submitted by expert witnesses. However, USCIS is ultimately
tesponsible for making the final determination of the alien’s eligibility. See
Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988).
(Tt. at 16-17 [Doc. #13 at 16-17].) Plaintiff did not submit any new expert letters in response
to this Request for Evidence, and the agency went on to discuss the originally-submitted letters
in its ultimate decision.
The agency found, among other things, that the letters described Plaintiff's “work in
technical details and provide[d] additional insight into some of the petitionet’s projects and
the field.” (T'r. at 4-5 [Doc. #13 at 4-5].) Nevertheless, the agency found that, while such
letters ate helpful in explaining the tecord evidence, the major significance of an applicant’s
wotk “must be demonstrated by pre-existing, independent, and objective evidence.” (Tr. at 5
[Doc. #13 at 5].) The letters, the agency found, did little more than “state that the authors
10

cited the petitionet’s work in their own research” or “teference the petitioner’s number of
citations and/or peer-review services to journals in the field.” (Tr. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5].) The

agency then referenced its “discuss[ion] above” to explain why these references to citations
and peet-teviewed work did not show that Plaintiffs contributions had been of major
significance to the field. (Tr. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5].)
With regard to Plaintiff's co-authored patent, the agency recognized that the patent was
“ndicative of the originality of the work,” consistent with the conclusion that Plaintiff had
established originality. However, the agency found that there was no other suppott in the
record to “establish how the patented work has impacted or been of major significance to the
field as a whole.” (Tr. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5].) Thus, because there was no evidence that the
patent had “resulted in a breakthrough” or “impacted the field in major ways,” it was not
evidence that Plaintiff's contributions were of major significance in the field. (T'r. at 5 [Doc.
#13 at 5].)*
Similarly, the agency found that “receiving funding to conduct research” was not itself
evidence that the research had resulted in a “contribution of major significance” because
funding, while indicative of the importance of the work, was nevertheless common in the field.
(Tr. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5].) The agency concluded that the evidence of funding could show
that the research was original, but “does not establish the impact of the research in the field.”
(Tr. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5].)

4 The Patent itself is for “Accurate Localization of an Object by Network Device.” (Tr. at 452 [Doc. #13-9 at
27|.) The Applicant is Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP. Plaintiff is listed as one of the four
inventors, and the lead inventor is Dr. Yun, who wrote one of Plaintiff's letters, and who noted in his letter
that he was Plaintiff's supervisor when Plaintiff was an intern at Hewlett Packard Enterprise. (I't. at 368 [Doc.
#13-7 at 43],)
11

Finally, while acknowledging that Plaintiff had shown that he had served as a peer
reviewer and had presented evidence about the requitements for being selected as a peer
reviewer, the agency rejected any argument that simply being a peer reviewer amounted to
having “a significant impact ot influence on the field as a whole.” (Tt. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5].)
Based on these findings, the agency denied Plaintiffs application at step one of the
regulatory analysis, without going on to consider the merits of Plaintiff's application at step
two. (Tr. at 5-6 [Doc. #13 at 5-6].) The agency noted that to satisfy the regulatory criteria,
“petitioners must establish that not only have they made original contributions, but also that
the contributions have been of major significance in the field.” (T't. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5].) The

agency concluded that while Plaintiff had made original contributions, “[u]pon review of all
the evidence in the record,” the evidence did not establish that the original scientific
conttibutions were of major significance in the field, and concluded that Plaintiff had not
satisfied the requirements for establishing “extraordinary ability.” (Tr at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5].)°

5 As noted above, “extraordinary ability” is distinct from “exceptional ability,’ which recetves second
preference. Compare 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added), with id. § 1153(b)(2) (emphasis added).
To qualify for the “exceptional ability” visa, a petitioner must make a lesser showing of ability, and
need only show three of the following:
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar
award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area
of exceptional ability;
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien
has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being
sought;
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation;
(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which
demonstrates exceptional ability;
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; ot
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or
field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
8 CER. § 204.5(k)(3) (ii).
12

A. Consideration of the Evidence
Because the agency found that Plaintiff had established two of the three regulatory
categories (It. at 3, 5 [Doc. #13 at 3, 5]), the Parties disagree over one decision only: the
agency’s determination that Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of his original
scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field (Tr. at
3-5 [Doc. #13 at 3-5]; Pl’s Mem. [Doc. #12] at 9-10; Def.’s Br. [Doc. #15] at 11). Plaintiff
first argues that the USCIS “ignored, misapprehended, and overlooked,” Plaintiff's evidence
of original contributions of major significance. (Pl.’s Mem. at 11 (capitalization omitted).) In
particular, Plaintiff argues that the agency (1) arbitrarily discounted the letters from the experts
without considering their substance (Pl.’s Mem. at 11-16), (2) failed to consider the record
evidence in the aggregate (Pl.’s Mem. at 17-18), and (3) did not give proper weight to Plaintiffs
patent (Pl.’s Mem. at 18).
1. Expert letters
In support of his application, Plaintiff submitted expert opinion letters from Doctors
Sangki Yun (Tr. at 368-69 [Doc. #13-7 at 43-44]), Dong Ma (T'. at 372-74 [Doc. #13-7 at 47-
49]), Sirajum Munir (Tt. at 377-79 [Doc. #13-8 at 2-4]), Dimitrios Koutsonikolas (Tr. at 382-
84 [Doc. #13-8 at 7-9]), and Eyuphan Bulut (Tr. at 387-89 [Doc. #13-8 at 12-14]). While not

To qualify for an “exceptional ability” visa, however, the alien must also provide evidence that his
setvices ate sought by a United States employer. Id. The “extraordinary ability” visa thus has
considerable advantages. Unlike the “exceptional ability” visa petition, the “extraordinary ability”
petition is not dependent on an actual offer for employment in the Untted States, and is exempt from
the time-consuming labor certification process, which requires that employers first test the
marketplace for existing qualified domestic workers. Compare id. § 204.5(h) (5), with id. § 204.5(&) (4).
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1117.
13

form letters, these exhibits did nevertheless follow a basic pattern that was common to them
all. In essence, the letters all describe:
(1) the publication of Plaintiff's articles in and his setvice to peer-reviewed
journals, the standards for such journals, and citations made to those articles;
(2) Plaintiff's credentials and work history;
(3) the mechanics and potential applications of Plaintiffs research to certain
markets;
(4) the fact that Plaintiff has a patent;
(5) the fact that Plaintiffs work has received institutional and reseatch funding
and the standards for receiving such funding; and
(6) the letter writers’ credentials.°
As the agency cortectly noted, other than the credentials of the letter writers, this information,
while condensed and highlighted in the letters, was contained in the record and had been
addressed mote fully by the agency elsewhere in its opinion. (Tr. at 3-5 [Doc. #13 at 3-5].) In
analyzing the significance of the letters, the agency cross-referenced its previous analysis of
the very evidence the letters referenced in turn, noting “[t]he evidence, as discussed above, is

not sufficient to establish that the petitionet’s research findings have remarkably impacted or
influenced the field as a whole.” (Tt. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5].) This evaluation is not arbitrary
and capricious, and is reasonably supported by the record.
For instance, the letters generally make reference to the high number of citations to
Plaintiffs work, but in particular highlight only a handful of the authors who had made such

6 With respect to the letter writers’ credentials, Dr. Yun is a software engineer at Meta, Dr. Ma is an assistant
professor at the Singapore Management University, Dr. Muntr is a Senior Research Scientist at Bosch Reseatch
and Technology Center, Dr. Koutsonikolas is an associate professor at Northeastern Untverstty; and Dr. Bulut
is an associate professor at Virginia Commonwealth University.
14

citations: Gao et al. (Tr. at 369 [Doc. #13-7 at 44}); Li et al. (Tr. at 383 [Doc. #13-8 at 8]); Ma
(Tr. at 373 [Doc. #13-7 at 48]); Tian et al. (I't. at 388 [Doc. #13-8 at 13]); Uchiyama et al. (Ir.
at 388 [Doc. #13-8 at 13]); and Zhang et al. (Tr. at 373, 377, 383 [Doc. #13-7 at 48; Doc #13-
8 at 2, 8}). All of these articles were included as exhibits in Plaintiffs application as examples
of “[njotable citations of Dr. Hampapur Venkatnarayan’s work.” (T't. at 480-524 [Doc. #13-
10 at 5-25; Doc. #13-11 at 1-24].) In reviewing these articles directly, the agency found that
“Iwhile the petitioner submitted copies of articles . . . that cited the petitioner’s works and
claimed that some teseatchers have used the petitioner’s works in ‘notable ways’, there is no
evidence distinguishing the petitionet’s work from all the other works cited in the atticles to
show the major significance of the petitionet’s work.” (Tr. at 4 [Doc. #13 at 4].) The agency
found that “[t]he evidence in the record is insufficient to demonstrate the reasons the citations

ate notable.” (T't. at 4 [Doc. #13 at 4].) That determination is reasonably supported by the
record, as teview of the articles and the record fails to indicate how the citations are notable

ot how they reflect a contribution of major significance.’ Similarly, the agency noted that “the

7 Plaintiff's briefing contends that the agency failed to consider the substance of the letters, citing to portions
of the letters regarding Plaintiff's “multiple original contributions.” (Pl.’s Mem. at 15-16; Pl’s Resp. [Doc. #16]
at 5-6.) Indeed, the letters themselves are replete with assertions of the originality of Plaintiffs contributions,
noting Plaintiff's “new system,” “new technology,” “discoveries,” “novel technique,” and “novel system.” □□□□
at 368-89 [Doc. #13-7 at 43-50; Doc. #13-8 at 1-14].) However, the agency accepted Plaintiff's evidence that
he had made original contributions. The agency nevertheless concluded that Plaintiff has not established that
these contributions were of major significance. The letters noted that Plaintiffs contributions were “valuable,”
“helpful,” and “significant” in increasing accuracy and improving performance of other technologies. (Tr. at
368-89 [Doc. #13-7 at 43-50; Doc. #13-8 at 1-14].) Plaintiff contends that these letters are sufficient to show
that Plaintiff's contributions were “materially significant” or “significantly changed the field.” (PL Resp. at 6.)
However, the agency could reasonably conclude that Plaintiff's contributions, even if significant, were not
sufficient to show major significance where “the record does not establish that the work has had a remarkable
impact or influence in the field.” (Tr. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5].) Moreover, the agency found that the letters simply
relied on other evidence already considered in the record, including publications, citations, and funding, without
any other pre-existing or independent documentation (Tr. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5]), and the agency addressed all
of the record evidence at length, as discussed above.
15

high-ranking status of a journal does not show an authotr’s influence or the impact of the
petitioner’s reseatch on the field neither does it establish that every article published in a highly
ranked journal automatically indicates a contribution of major significance.” (Tr. at 4 [Doc.
#13 at 4].)
The agency’s determination was well within its discretion. As the Ninth Circuit
similarly found in Kazarian—a decision upon which both Parties rely and which forms the
basis of the USCIS’s curtent two-stage analysis of extraordinary-ability visa applications (Pl.’s
Mem. at 2, 16, 19; Def.’s Br. at 7-8 & n.3)—an agency need not defer to statements presented
in expert letters:
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), [the applicant] submitted letters from
physics professors attesting to his contributions in the field. The [agency] found
that his contributions were not major, and thus did not meet the regulatory
definition of evidence. The f[agency’s] analysis here is consistent with the
relevant regulatory language, and the [agency’s] determination that [the
applicant] did not submit material that met the regulatory definition of evidence
set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor an abuse
of discretion.
Kazatian, 596 F.3d at 1122. The Court makes a similar finding here, and the agency’s similar
decision is not arbitrary and capricious.
Other than repeated references to the same articles, citation statistics, journal rankings,
and publication ctitetia as appeared elsewhere in the record, the letters do not address how
Plaintiff's publication history is distinguishable from anyone else in the field, let alone show
that his publication history is indicative of being of major significance. ‘Thus, when the agency
found that “generally, citations to a given article can serve as an indication that the field has
taken interest in a petitionet’s work” without being sufficient to establish that the work has

16

been of major significance (Tr. at 4 [Doc. #13 at 4}), it applied the same analysis to the
recitation of those citations in the letters (Tr. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5)]).
The same is true for each category of information re-raised in the letters, which the

agency addressed separately:
e “In general, citations can confirm that the field has taken interest in a
teseatcher’s work” but “a citation number or ranking does not provide
sufficient context to determine the impact or importance of a given researchet’s
wotk in the field” (Tr. at 4 [Doc. #13 at 4]; see also Tr. at 42-43, 45-76, 148-52,
459-68, 470-79 [Doc. #13-1 at 17-18, 20-50; Doc. #13-2 at 1; Doc. #13-3 at
23-27; Doc. #13-9 at 34-43; Doc. #13-9 at 45-50; Doc. #13-10 at 1-4]
(Plaintiffs citation statistics);
e “The petitioner did not submit evidence to demonstrate that the prestigious
status of a journal transfers to whoever publishes in the journal” (Tr. at 4 [Doc.
#13 at 4]; see also Tr. at 112-13, 456-57, 528-32 [Doc. #13-2 at 37-38; Doc.
#13-9 at 21-32; Doc. #13-12 at 3-7] Gournal rankings));
e “Though the petitioner claims that his peer-review service to journals is
evidence of the major significance of his work, the petitioner did not submit
evidence to support the claim” beyond mere “evidence of the criteria for
selecting reviewers and editors” (Tr. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5]; see also Tr. at 526-33
(Doc. #13-12 at 1-8] (peer review rankings and meaning of peer review);
e “The record shows that the Petitioner has worked on projects and conducted
reseatch which has been published” but the “submitted evidence does not
demonstrate that the petitioner’s publications have provoked a level of
commentary ot generated a degtee of attention that meets the major significance
threshold” (Tr. at 4 [Doc. #13 at 4]; see also Tr. at 392-97, 399, 401 [Doc. #13-
8 at 17-22, 24, 26] (Plaintiff's résumé, diploma, and employment letter reflecting
his credentials and work history); Tr. at 285-89 [Doc. #13-6 at 10-14] (Plaintiff's
personal statement detailing the mechanics and applications of his reseatch));
e “The record contains documentations about a patent” which “is indicative of
the originality of the work,” but “does not establish how the patented work has
impacted or been of major significance to the field as a whole” (Tr. at 5 [Doc.
#13 at 5]; see also Tr. at 452-54 [Doc. #13-9 at 27-29] (patent information));
and

17

e “The petitioner submitted information about publications which mention
support from various agencies or organizations” and “[s]ome of the letters of
support reference the petitioner’s funding,” but “receiving funding to conduct
teseatch is not a contribution of major significance” (T't. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5];
see also Tr. at 165, 535-41 [Doc. #13-3 at 40; Doc. #13-12 at 10-16] (evidence
of funding)).
Based on this analysis, Plaintiff's argument that the agency “never even considered the
substance of the letters in its decision” (Pl.’s Mem. at 16), is unfounded. While Plaintiff may
disagree with the determination the agency made based on the letters, the record nevertheless
reflects that the agency considered the letters and, as noted above, addressed the arguments
raised therein, whether directly or through cross-reference to its earlier analysis.
it. Failure to consider the evidence in the aggregate and miscitation of case
law
Plaintiff next faults the agency for allegedly not properly considering the record
evidence and for misciting case law in making its final decision. (Pl’s Mem. at 17-18.)
However, as noted above, the agency evaluated each category of evidence put forward and
found that none established that Plaintiff had made a contribution of major significance to the
field. In tesponse, Plaintiff argues that it was error to not consider the evidence in the

agetegate. However, it is not cleat how the accumulation of multiple pieces of evidence not

8 In making the argument that it was “a fatal error” for the agency to entirely fail to consider the substance of
the letters (PL.’s Mem. at 16), Plaintiff relies on Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n of the United States v. State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). However, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n
was not an immigrant visa case, nor did it deal with the analysis of expert letters. Rather, the cited portion of
the decision stands for little more than the proposition that an agency’s rulemaking authority 1s exercised in an
arbitrary and capricious mannet if the agency “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem”
which the rule was intended to address. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 42-43. The Court notes that
Plaintiff's case does not atise out of the USCIS’s rule-making authority, but rather from an administrative
decision on his visa application. In any event, as noted above, the agency did not “entirely fail[ ] to consider”
the expert letters but addressed them directly and reasonably summarized and analyzed the information
contained therein.
18

showing a contribution of major significance—all related and focused primarily on the
publication of and citations to Plaintiffs scholarly work—could collectively show a
contribution of major significance. In any event, the agency specifically noted that it had
considered all of the evidence and nevertheless rejected Plaintiff's application: “Upon review
of all the evidence in the record, it is concluded that the submitted evidence does not establish
that the beneficiaty’s original scientific contributions ha[ve] been of major significance in the
field.” (Tr. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5].) Thus, there is no support for a finding that the agency failed

to consider the evidence before it, whether individually or collectively.
Relatedly, Plaintiff argues that the agency misapplied case law in determining that an
applicant had to present evidence of a conttibution that was not just original, but both original
and, separately, of major significance. (Pl.’s Mem. at 17.) In explaining that the “term ‘original’
and the phrase ‘major significance’ ate not superfluous” and thus indicate two different
elements of what an applicant must show, the agency relied on Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple
Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F.3d 28 (3d Cir. 1995), and APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619 (2d Cir.
2003), which had also relied on Silverman. (Tt. at 3 [Doc. #13 at 3].) Itis apparent from the
decision that the agency merely relied on these cases for the basic interpretive purpose of
establishing that “a statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so
that no patt will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant,” regardless of the fact
that the cases did not specifically deal with immigrant visas. See Silverman, 51 F.3d at 31
(internal quotation omitted); accord Potter, 343 F.3d at 626.?

Moreover, even if, for the sake of argument, the agency’s citations to Silverman and Potter were incorrect or
inapposite, Plaintiff, even now, does not argue that the basic premise for which the agency cited those cases
was incorrect. Plaintiff accepts the agency’s regulatory interpretation that an applicant must present evidence
19

iti. ‘The patent
Plaintiff also alleges that the agency failed to give proper weight to the evidence of
Plaintiffs patent in determining whether his work has been of major significance in his field.
Plaintiff apparently argues that because a patent must be for work that is both novel and useful,
it is therefore necessatily evidence of both that work’s originality and its major significance.
(See P1’s Mem. at 18.) The agency disagreed and noted that while a patent is indicative that a
work was original, not every patent necessarily indicates a breakthrough of major significance.
As the agency concluded at length:
The record contains documentation about a patent on which the petitioner is
listed as co-author. The patent information is indicative of the originality of the
work. The record does not establish how the patented work has impacted or
been of major significance to the field as a whole. The petitioner is required to
demonstrate through independent and objective evidence that not only hals]
the patented work been licensed, but also that the contributions have led to a
breakthrough or have been of major significance in the field. Without evidence
that a patented or licensed work has tesulted in a breakthrough or has impacted
the field in major ways, the record is insufficient to demonstrate the “major
sienificance[]” [o]f the contribution.
(Ir. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5].) This conclusion was reasonably explained and reasonably supported
by the record.
Even if Plaintiff is correct that every patent indicates that it is both novel and useful
(see Pl.’s Mem. at 18), and even if Plaintiffs work were otherwise shown to be novel and
useful—something the agency never contested (see Tr. at 3-5 [Doc. #13 at 3-5])—this would

not change the fact that “useful” and “of major significance” ate by no means one and the

of originality and evidence of having had a major tmpact on the field. (See Pl’s Mem. at 12 (‘“[T]he plain
language establishes that an individual must demonstrate two things: (1) original scientific . . . contributions
that are, (2) of major significance.”).) Therefore, to the extent Silverman and Potter do not directly support the
agency’s interpretive proposition, any such error was harmless because Plaintiff concedes the proposition.
20

same, as the agency essentially noted (Tt. at 5 [Doc. #13 at 5]). Thus, Plaintiff fails to establish

any ettor in the agency’s consideration of the patent.!°
B. USCIS’s Policy Manual
Plaintiff next argues that the agency’s decision was not in accordance with its own
policy manual, which states that citation and publication history “may be probative of the
significance of the person’s contributions.” (Pl.’s Mem. at 18-19.) However, Plaintiff also
concedes that the USCIS policy manual “does not remove [the agency’s] discretion in making
adjudicatory decisions.” (Pl’s Mem. at 18.) The fact that the agency could consider such
evidence—as the agency did here (T'r. at 3-5 [Doc. #13 at 3-5])—and that this evidence may
be probative of an applicant’s contributions of major significance, in no way demonsttates
that the manual required the agency to discard its discretion and move on to step two to
consider whether to grant Plaintiff an extraordinary-ability visa. As noted above, the agency
went through each category of evidence Plaintiff submitted and analyzed it to determine
whether Plaintiff met his evidentiary burden. Just because, in certain circumstances, the policy
manual permits the agency to find major significance based on citations and publication history
does not mean metely submitting these types of evidence automatically establishes that an

° Tn support of his argument for reversal, Plaintiff relies on a decision from the Northern District of California
which found, among other things, that the agency essentially misstated the standard for receiving a patent in
finding that it was not evidence of a breakthrough of major significance. (PL’s Mem. at 18.) Zizi v. Cuccinelli,
No. 20-cv-07856-SVK, 2021 WL 2826713, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2021). However, unlike in Zizi, the Court
sees no indication in Plaintiff's case that the agency misapprehended the legal requirements for a patent, or
otherwise erroneously assumed that a patented invention is not also useful. As noted above, the agency merely
stated that in addition to being patented, an invention would also have to be of major significance. See 8 C-F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). Plaintiff has pointed to no specific part of the record to raise doubt that the agency was
“undoubtedly correct that not all patents represent a contribution of major significance.” See Zizi, 2021 WL
2826713 at *4.
21

applicant has shown a contribution of major significance. Thus, the agency’s decision in this

case was in accordance with the policy manual.
C. Distinction Between Evidentiary Step and Merits Step
Finally, Plaintiff argues that, in finding that Plaintiff had not presented sufficient
evidence of his original contributions of major significance, the agency actually, and
improperly, considered the merits of Plaintiffs petition and found, in substance, that he had

not presented sufficient evidence of his extraordinary ability. (Pl’s Mem. at 20-21.)
However, the agency was cleat in its decision that it did not, and would not, consider
the merits of Plaintiffs claim of extraordinary ability:
Since the petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that
the beneficiaty meets at least three of the antecedent evidentiary prongs, USCIS
will not conduct a final merits determination to determine whether the
beneficiary has reached a level of expertise indicating that the beneficiary is one
of that small percentage who have tisen to the top of the field of endeavor, and
whether the beneficiary has sustained acclaim.
(Tr. at 6 [Doc. #13 at 6].) This conclusion is supported by the fact that the agency analyzed
Plaintiffs evidence solely under the terms of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and focused on whether
the Plaintiffs evidence showed “contributions of major significance in the field.” (Tr. at 3-5
[Doc. #13 at 3-5].) Therefore, any argument that the agency conflated the evidentiary and
metits standards is unsupported by—and in fact refuted by—the record.
To the extent Plaintiff argues that the record clearly establishes that he met his
evidentiary burden and therefore the only possible basis for rejecting his application would
have been because the agency believed he failed or would fail on the merits (see Pl’s Mem. at
21), this contention is merely a repackaging of his argument that the agency erted in finding
he had not met his evidentiary burden. As discussed at length above, the agency set out at
22

length its analysis in concluding that Plaintiff had failed to meet his evidentiary burden. ‘The
determination was teasonably explained, the agency’s reasoning is discernible from the
decision, the agency did not fail to consider any evidence, and the determination is reasonably
supported by the record. Ultimately, the decision of the agency was not arbitrary and
capticious ot an abuse of discretion.
IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. #14] be GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.
#11] be DENIED.
This, the 30% day of August, 2024.

LD thal
ee
nited States Magistrate Judge

23

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10653762. Public record. Not legal advice.