UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) DAN LIU, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 20-704 (FYP) ) ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Dan Liu, a successful fashion model who is a citizen of China, filed a petition with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for an employment- based visa, based on her contention that she is an individual of “extraordinary ability.” After USCIS denied her petition, Liu filed the instant suit against USCIS and associated government officials, arguing that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. Now before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and will deny Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. BACKGROUND The Immigration and Nationality Act allocates a certain number of visas for immigrants possessing “extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has 1 been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). This type of visa may be granted if “the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability,” and “the alien’s entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States.” Id. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The extraordinary-ability visa, commonly referred to as an EB-1 visa, has considerable advantages. Unlike other employment- based visas, the EB-1 visa is not dependent on an actual offer of employment in the United States; and it is exempt from a time-consuming labor certification process, which requires that employers first test the marketplace for existing qualified domestic workers. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5), with id. § 204.5(k)(4) (describing requirements for exceptional-ability petitions). Given these substantial benefits, the extraordinary ability designation is “extremely restrictive by design.” Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131 (D.D.C. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). EB-1 visas are “reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants,” Hamal v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), and “courts have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation.” Hamal v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at *1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) (citing Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non- Einsteinian theories of gravitation); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that “arguably one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history” did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach)). The statute requires an alien attempting to establish extraordinary ability to support her 2 claim with “extensive documentation.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). The applicable regulation concerning “[a]liens …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals