UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IK SCHOOL OF GYMNASTICS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:17-cv-02822 (TNM) KIRSTJEN NIELSON et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION IK School of Gymnastics (“the School”) requested that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) classify Ms. Viktoriia Savelieva as an “alien of extraordinary ability,” a status that would allow her to enter the United States to work at the School’s gymnastics training center in Florida. As evidence of Ms. Savelieva’s ability and renown as a gymnast, the School submitted documentation such as photos of awards and trophies, certificates, news articles, and letters from coaches. USCIS, though, denied the School’s petition, concluding that Ms. Savelieva did not satisfy the statutory requirements for an extraordinary ability visa. The School now sues USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna and his boss, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen M. Nielsen, bringing claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). The School asserts that the agency’s denial was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. In response, the Federal Defendants ask this Court: (1) to dismiss the School’s complaint, in part, for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) to grant summary judgment in their favor on the APA count. The School also moved for summary judgment. These opposing motions are now ripe. Given the generous arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review, this Court will not overturn the agency’s reasoned judgment that the School did not satisfy the statutory requirements for this type of visa. So the Defendants’ motion will be granted, and the Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. I. BACKGROUND The School is a professional gymnastics training center in Miami, Florida. Compl. ¶ 8, ECF 1. It sought to employ Ms. Savelieva, a citizen of Ukraine, as “a rhythmic gymnastics assistant coach/performer,” so it submitted on her behalf an I-129 non-immigrant visa petition for her classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. Id. ¶ 17. In support of its petition, the School submitted various forms of documentation. See generally CAR 265-331. After receiving the School’s petition and materials, USCIS sent the School a “Request for Evidence,” seeking specific additional documentation. See CAR 246-54. The School then submitted both a written response and additional evidence. See CAR 18-127. USCIS still denied the School’s petition because it concluded that the School did not establish “the type of sustained national or international recognition of accomplishments necessary[.]” CAR 9. Accordingly, it determined that Ms. Savelieva was ineligible for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. Id. Noting that “[t]he burden of proof to establish eligibility for a desired preference rests on the petitioner,” USCIS found that the School had fallen short. Id. The School seeks relief in this Court, alleging that USCIS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with the law. Compl. ¶ 1. In response, USCIS asks this Court to dismiss the School’s complaint, in part, for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to grant 2 summary ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals