Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01200/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01200-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 05:0701 Judicial Review of Agency Decision

---

1

3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STRATEGATI, LLC; DR. CORINNE 

JENNI,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General; et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS

ORDER:

(1)DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

[Doc. No. 15]

(2)GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

CROSS-MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 [Doc. No. 19]

On June 7, 2018, Plaintiffs Strategati, LLC and Dr. Corinne Jenni filed a complaint 

seeking judicial review of an administrative denial of Dr. Jenni’s I-140 Immigrant Petition. 

(Doc. No. 1.) On October 23, 2018, Defendants answered Plaintiffs’ complaint. (Doc. No. 

8.) Defendants filed the Administrative Record on November 9, 2018. (Doc. No. 14–14-

10, “AR.”) On January 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the 

Court to reverse denial of Dr. Jenni’s immigration application by U.S. Customs and 

Immigration Service (“USCIS”) and direct USCIS to grant the application. (Doc. No. 15.)

Case 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 14
2

3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On April 1, 2019, Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment, asking the Court to 

affirm USCIS’s decision. (Doc. No. 19.) For the reasons below, the Court denies Plaintiffs’

motion for summary judgment and grants Defendants’ cross-motion for summary 

judgment.

BACKGROUND

I. Legal Framework

Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) provides for 

the issuance of a visa to an alien if:

(i) the alien has extraordinary 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,

(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 

extraordinary ability, and

(iii) the alien’s entry into the United States will substantially benefit 

prospectively the United States.

8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). An individual can meet the evidentiary threshold for proving 

extraordinary ability by providing either evidence of a “major, international recognized 

award” or at least three of the following criteria:

(i) Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 

recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;

(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;

(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade 

publications or other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for 

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 or an allied field of specification for 

which classification is sought;

(v) Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 

Case 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 14
3

3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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 

organizations 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 or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales.

8 C.F.R. § 204(h)(3). If such evidence does not apply to the alien’s occupation, comparable 

evidence is accepted. Id. § 204.5(h)(4). “If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, 

USCIS determines whether the evidence demonstrates both a ‘level of expertise indicating 

that the individual is 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 ‘that the alien has sustained national or 

international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 

expertise.’ 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).” Kazarian v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 

596 F.3d 1115, 1119–20 (9th Cir. 2010). “The scant caselaw indicates that the regulations 

regarding this preference classification are extremely restrictive.” Id. at 1120 (internal 

quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted).

II. Factual History

On January 2018, Dr. Jenni filed an employment-based immigrant petition to 

classify herself as an “alien with extraordinary ability” under § 203(b)(1)(A) of the INA. 

(AR 5–27.) Dr. Jenni claimed extraordinary ability in the field of small business strategy. 

(Id.) On February 2, 2018, USCIS made a request for additional evidence in support of the 

petition. (Id. 69–75.) Dr. Jenni responded to the request. (Id. 76–98.)

To establish extraordinary ability or alternatively the first listed criteria, Dr. Jenni 

submitted evidence of two “Stevie Women in Business Awards” won by Dr. Jenni in 

2017—specifically, a “Bronze Stevie” for “Woman of the Year – Advertising, Business 

Case 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 14
4

3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Services, Marketing and Public Relations” and a “Bronze Stevie” for “Woman of the Year 

– Business Services.” (Id. 176–180.) Dr. Jenni also provided additional evidence in relation 

to her Stevie Awards and other criteria. (Id. 171–205.) After consideration of Dr. Jenni’s 

submitted evidence, USCIS concluded that Dr. Jenni’s Stevie Awards were not major, 

internationally recognized awards and Dr. Jenni did not meet at least three of the ten 

criteria, stating:

Upon review, USCIS finds that the beneficiary has not received a one-time 

achievement (a major internationally recognized award) or does not meet at 

least three of the ten criteria. Since the petitioner has not established by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary 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 risen to the very top of the field of endeavor, and whether the beneficiary 

has sustained acclaim.

(Id. 55–61.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs filed the instant complaint on June 7, 2018 seeking 

review of USCIS’s denial of Dr. Jenni’s petition. (Doc. No. 1.)

LEGAL STANDARD

“In actions brought under the Administrative Procedures Act (‘APA’), summary 

judgment serves as an avenue for deciding whether a final agency action is adequately 

supported by the administrative record.” Repaka v. Beers, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1217 

(S.D. Cal. 2014) (citing Northwest Motorcycle Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 

1471–72 (9th Cir. 1994)). Under the APA, a court may set aside an agency’s final decision 

only on a finding that the action was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Ariz. Cattle Growers’

Ass’n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife, 273 F.3d 1229, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001). An agency action is 

arbitrary or capricious if the agency does not “examine the relevant data and articulate a 

satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts 

found and the choice made.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 

463 U.S. 29, 42–43 (1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 14
5

3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“The agency’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.” Family Inc. 

v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 469 F.3d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir. 2006). A court 

“will not disturb the agency’s findings under this deferential standard unless the evidence 

presented would compel a reasonable finder of fact to reach a contrary result.” Id. “Review 

under this standard is to be searching and careful, but remains narrow, and a court is not to 

substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 

F.3d 552, 556 (9th Cir. 2000). A court’s review is based on the administrative record that 

was before the agency decisionmakers at the time of their decision. Repaka, 993 F. Supp. 

2d at 1218 (citing Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971)).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs argue that USCIS abused its discretion by denying Dr. Jenni’s immigration 

petition because she has proven extraordinary ability through her Stevie Awards, or 

alternatively, through meeting eight of the ten criteria. (Doc. No. 15.) Defendants argue 

that USCIS correctly concluded that Dr. Jenni’s Stevie Awards are not major, 

internationally recognized awards and that Dr. Jenni only meets two of the required three 

criteria. (Doc. No. 19.) After consideration of the parties’ arguments and thorough review 

of the administrative record, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Defendants 

and denies summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.

I. One-Time Achievement

Plaintiffs first argue that Dr. Jenni proved extraordinary ability because her Stevie 

Awards are major, internationally recognized awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). (Doc. 

No. 15 at 8–12.) Dr. Jenni has won two Bronze Stevie Awards for “Woman of the Year –

Advertising, Business Services, Marketing and Public Relations” and “Woman of the Year 

– Business Services.” (AR 176–180.) In addition to evidence that she won the awards, Dr. 

Jenni provided USCIS evidence in support of her proposition that a Stevie Award is a

major, internationally recognized award, including a letter from the President of Stevie, 

media descriptions of the Stevie Awards, and a list of award winners. (Id. 171–205.) In its 

request for information, USCIS asked Dr. Jenni to provide, among other things, evidence 

Case 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 14
6

3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

showing the criteria used to grant the award. (Id. 71–72.) Dr. Jenni did not provide such 

evidence, but instead merely stated that there were established criteria. (Id.; Doc. No. 19-1 

at 6.) 

USCIS in its decision denying Dr. Jenni’s petition explained that Dr. Jenni failed to 

demonstrate that Stevie Awards are major, internationally recognized awards, a category 

with limited applicability:

After reviewing the record, [a Stevie Award] does not qualify as a major, 

internationally recognized award. Given Congress’s intent to restrict that 

category to “that small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very 

top of their field of endeavor,” the regulation permitting eligibility based on a 

one-time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small 

handful of awards qualifying as major, internationally recognized awards. See 

H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 

1990 WL 200418, at *6739. The House Report specifically cited the Nobel 

Prize as an example of a one-time achievement; other examples which enjoy 

major, international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy 

Award, and (most relevant for athletics) an Olympic Medal. The regulation is 

consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement 

must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 

The selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is 

reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the 

awardees, reflects a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large 

cash prize.

. . .

The evidence does not show that the petitioner has received a major, 

internationally recognized prize or award.”

(AR 57.) USCIS came to this conclusion not only based its review of the initial evidence 

presented by Dr. Jenni, but also based on its review of Dr. Jenni’s response to USCIS’s 

request for evidence. (See id. 55–61.) USCIS also explained that Dr. Jenni’s Stevie Awards 

did not meet the lower threshold required by the first criterion, stating:

Initially, the category “Woman of the Year” does not measure the petitioner’s 

standing or selection from the whole field and among those men who are well 

established in the field or convey the petitioner’s extraordinary ability under 

this criterion.

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 14
7

3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Additionally, we do not consider such an honor to be a nationally or 

internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of 

endeavor, because it is limited to participants of that competition; thus, such 

evidence has no probative value for meeting this criterion. Therefore, this 

criterion remains unmet.

(Id. 58.) In sum, the parties here dispute what constitutes a major, internationally

recognized award. As one court explained in a similar instance:

Common experience draws no line of demarcation between those awards that 

are “major” and those that are not. The applicable law in this case draws no 

clearer line, other than to establish that some awards are “major, international 

recognized awards” and others are “lesser nationally or internationally 

recognized prizes or awards”. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) & (3)(i). Nothing in 

either the INA or the regulations implementing it explains how USCIS or a 

reviewing court is to differentiate between “major” and lesser awards. In 

legislative history, Congress named the Nobel Prize as its sole example of a 

major, internationally recognized award that would by itself demonstrate 

“extraordinary ability.” Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119 (citing 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 

6710, 6739). No one suggests that an alien must win a Nobel Prize to qualify, 

and no one suggests that [Plaintiff’s] awards are on par with a Nobel Prize. 

What awards less prestigious and recognized than the Nobel Prize qualify as 

major, international awards is a question that the law does not answer. There 

is little question, moreover, that Congress felt it unnecessary and perhaps 

inadvisable to define “major” in this context. It entrusted that decision to the 

administrative process.

Rijal v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1345 (W.D. Wash. 

2011), aff’d, 683 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012).

Accordingly, the Court must review the administrative record that was before USCIS 

and determine whether USCIS “considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational 

connection between the facts it found and the choice it made.” Id. at 1345–46; see Motor 

Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 42–43. Here, USCIS considered Dr. Jenni’s Stevie 

Awards and the supplemental evidence Dr. Jenni submitted in support of her claim that 

Stevie Awards are major, internationally awards. (See AR 55–61.) USCIS’s decision

articulated a rational connection between the facts presented to it and its conclusion that 

Dr. Jenni’s Stevie Awards were not major, internationally recognized awards under 

8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), emphasizing how rarely Congress intended this provision to be

Case 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 14
8

3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

applicable. Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude that USCIS’s decision that Dr. Jenni’s 

Stevie Awards were not major, internationally recognized awards was “arbitrary, 

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” See 5 

U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 42–4.

II. Extraordinary Ability Evidentiary Criteria

Plaintiffs also assert that Dr. Jenni proved extraordinary ability by meeting eight of 

the ten criteria listed in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). (Doc. No. 15 at 12–25.) Defendants concede 

that USCIS determined that Dr. Jenni met two of the criteria from 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)—

“(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” and “(vi) Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 

professional or major trade publications or other major media[.]” (Doc. No. 19-1 at 7; AR 

57.) Defendants maintain that USCIS correctly concluded that Dr. Jenni did not meet any 

of the other criteria. (Doc. No. 19-1 at 7–11.) Plaintiffs concede that two of the criteria do 

not apply here—“(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at artistic 

exhibitions or showcases” and “(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing 

arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales.” 

(Doc. No. 15 at 15–16.) Again, the Court must review the administrative record that was 

before USCIS and determine whether USCIS “considered the relevant factors and 

articulated a rational connection between the facts it found and the choice it made” on each 

of the six criteria at issue. Rijal, 772 F. Supp. 2d at 1345–46.

In support of the first criterion, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), “[d]ocumentation of the 

alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 

excellence in the field of endeavor,” Dr. Jenni provided her Stevie Awards and supporting 

documentation. (AR 171–205.) USCIS requested that Dr. Jenni provide the judging criteria 

used for Stevie Awards, but Dr. Jenni failed to provide such information. (Doc. No. 19-1 

at 6; see AR 83.) After review of Dr. Jenni’s evidence, USCIS concluded that Dr. Jenni’s 

Stevie Awards do not qualify under this criterion, stating:

Case 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 14
9

3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Initially, the category “Woman of the Year” does not measure the petitioner’s 

standing or selection from the whole field and among those men who are well 

established in the field or convey the petitioner’s extraordinary ability under 

this criterion.

Additionally, we do not consider such an honor to be a nationally or 

internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of 

endeavor, because it is limited to participants of that competition; thus, such 

evidence has no probative value for meeting this criterion. Therefore, this 

criterion remains unmet.

(AR 58.) USCIS considered the evidence presented to it by Dr. Jenni and articulated a 

rational connection between that evidence and its conclusion that the first criterion was not 

met. Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude that USCIS’s decision on the first criterion

was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise improper. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. 

at 42–43.

For the second criterion, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), Dr. Jenni provided evidence 

showing that she is a member of the Institute of Management Consultants, Strategic 

Management Society, Academy of Management, SCORE San Diego, and the Chamber of 

Commerce to show “[d]ocumentation 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[.]” (AR 72.) USCIS in its request for evidence noted that Dr. Jenni submitted 

evidence that she is a member of five different organizations, but Dr. Jenni provided no 

evidence that any one of the organizations “requires outstanding achievements of its 

members as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 

fields.” (Id. 72.) USCIS requested that Dr. Jenni provide such information if available. (Id.) 

Dr. Jenni however failed to provide any additional evidence on this criterion. (Doc. No. 

19-1 at 8.) Therefore, in its decision, USCIS concluded that Dr. Jenni did not meet this 

criterion, stating “In response to the [request for evidence], the petitioner submitted no 

further evidence or arguments in support of [her] meeting this criterion. Therefore, this 

criterion remains unmet.” (AR 58.) USCIS reviewed the evidence available to it and 

Case 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 14
10

3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

articulated a rational connection between the evidence and its conclusion that Dr. Jenni 

failed to meet this criterion’s requirements. The Court thus cannot conclude that USCIS’s 

decision on this criterion was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise improper. See Motor 

Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 42–43.

On the third criterion, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), Dr. Jenni provided an article about 

her on a HuffPost contributor platform blog and a citation to an issue of the San Diego 

Business Journal about entrepreneurial women that mentions Dr. Jenni to show

“[p]ublished material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 

major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought.”

(AR 188–192, 229.) Dr. Jenni also provided articles entitled “Is the Huffington Post a 

Newspaper?” and “Why the New York Times Will Lose to the Huffington Post” to show 

that the blog meets this criterion. (Id. 193–199.) After review of the evidence, USCIS 

concluded that Dr. Jenni’s evidence was insufficient to meet the criterion, stating that the 

San Diego Business Journal article “is about the rise of entrepreneurial women and not the 

petitioner specifically. Articles that are not about the beneficiary do not meet this 

regulatory criterion.” (Id. 58 [citing Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F. Supp. 2d 535, 545 

(S.D.N.Y. 2012); Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 

8, 2008)].) Further, USCIS concluded that with respect to the HuffPost blog article, Dr. 

Jenni failed to demonstrate that the source is a major media or professional or major trade 

publication, explaining that not all material found on internet sites such as the HuffPost 

blog “may be equivalent to material with stringent vetting and high standards for 

publication.” (Id.) USCIS then listed issues inherent with internet publishing that make 

internet sources such as the HuffPost blog “less probative than documents published by a 

publishing house or major news organization.” (Id.) Dr. Jenni also stated that she was 

interviewed for a television show, (Doc. No. 15 at 13), but any such interview has not aired 

and was not submitted as evidence to USCIS. (See Doc. No. 19-1 at 9.) USCIS reviewed 

the evidence that was presented to it and concluded that Dr. Jenni failed to meet this 

criterion, sufficiently articulating its rational reasons for reaching that conclusion. Thus, 

Case 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 14
11

3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Court concludes that USCIS’s decision that Dr. Jenni did not meet the evidentiary 

requirements for this criterion is not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise improper. See

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 42–43.

In support of the fifth criterion, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), Dr. Jenni submitted 

evidence of Dr. Jenni’s published book chapters, published journal articles, conference 

presentations, and strategic management technology software system using a patented1

logarithm as “[e]vidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 

business-related contributions of major significance in the field[.]” (AR 89–95) In its 

request for evidence, USCIS stated that this evidence, “while demonstrating original 

contributions, does not substantiate original contributions of ‘major significance’ in a field 

whose leaving scholars (according to Google Scholar) have garnered citations numbered 

well in the thousands.” (Id. 73.) Dr. Jenni then provided seven letters in support of her 

application. (Id. 91.) In its decision, USCIS reviewed the evidence and concluded that Dr. 

Jenni did not meet this criterion, stating that “[r]egardless of the field, the phrase 

‘contributions of major significance in the field’ requires substantial influence beyond 

one’s employers, clients, or customers.” (Id. 59 [citing Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 

126, 134–35 (D.C. 2013)].) USCIS further explained:

The record shows that petitioner is an inventor of a patent, but a patent is not 

necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some degree of 

influence over the field as a whole. See Matter of New York State Dep’t of 

Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 n. 7 (Comm’r. 1998). While the issuance of a 

patent does verify the originality of a device or process, the significance of an 

invention is not evaluated during the application process. [USCIS] must 

determine on a case-by-case basis the contribution of the innovation to the 

academic field.

[Dr. Jenni] submitted letters of support, but the submission of solicited letter 

supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. USCIS may 

in its discretion use such letters as advisory opinions submitted by expert 

witnesses, but [USCIS] is ultimately responsible for making the final 

 

1 Defendants state in their motion for summary judgment that Dr. Jenni misrepresented to USCIS through 

ambiguous evidence that she has a patent, while she only in fact has a pending patent application. (Doc. 

No. 19-1 at 9.)

Case 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 14
12

3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

determination of the beneficiary’s eligibility. See Matter of Caron 

International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988); see also Matter of V-K, 

24 I&N Dec. 500, n. 2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does 

not purport to be evidence as to “fact”). Moreover, [Dr. Jenni’s] original 

contributions in the field must be demonstrated by preexisting, independent, 

and corroborating evidence.

(Id.) Based on USCIS’s review of the record, USCIS concluded that Dr. Jenni’s evidence 

did not demonstrate that her achievements amount to original contributions of major 

significance in her field. (Id.) USCIS articulated satisfactory reasoning for reaching this 

conclusion. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that USCIS’s decision that Dr. Jenni 

failed to meet this criterion was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise improper. See Motor 

Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 42–43.

For the eighth criterion, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), to show “[e]vidence that the 

alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 

have a distinguished reputation,” Dr. Jenni submitted evidence of her roles in the Small 

Business Administration and IMC USA, the certifying body of management consultants in 

the United States. (AR 95.) Specifically, Dr. Jenni emphasized that a letter from IMC USA

states that Dr. Jenni was “selected to join the Membership Committee Panel, serving as 

committee chair to develop new strategy and direction for our growing membership . . . 

Because of her research and knowledge of the turbulence levels and the environment that 

small businesses must exist and operate in, she has a level of expertise not normally 

encountered in the field.” (Id.) In its decision, USCIS concluded that Dr. Jenni’s evidence 

did not meet this criterion, emphasizing that this criterion requires a petitioner to “provide 

specifics relating to how [her] role was leading or critical to an organization or 

establishment as a whole.” (Id. 66 [citing Noroozi, 905 F. Supp. 2d at 545].) USCIS 

reviewed the evidence provided by Dr. Jenni and explained that “it does not provide 

specific examples of how the petitioner’s roles rise to the level of leading or critical 

consistent with this regulatory criterion. Repeating the language of the statute or 

regulations does not satisfy the beneficiary’s burden of proof. . . . Moreover, USCIS need 

not accept primarily conclusory assertions.” (Id. [internal citations omitted].) Because 

Case 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of 14
13

3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

USCIS reviewed the evidence and articulated a rational connection between the evidence 

and its conclusion that Dr. Jenni failed to meet this criterion, the Court cannot conclude 

that USCIS’s decision on this criterion was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise improper.

See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 42–43.

Finally, on the ninth criterion, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), Dr. Jenni provided a letter 

from a previous client showing that Dr. Jenni’s service fees are “5 times higher than any 

other ordinary business strategy consulting services” and the client’s reasoning for paying 

Dr. Jenni “above standard compensation” to show “[e]vidence that the alien has 

commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation 

to others in the field[.]” (Doc. No. 15 at 22; AR 97.) In its request for evidence, USCIS 

stated that this did not establish that Dr. Jenni commanded a high salary in relation to others 

in the field and provided examples of evidence that may be sufficient. (AR 74.) In response, 

Dr. Jenni stated that “Based on report by the Glassdoor, the national average salary for a 

Business Strategist is $106,565. Dr. Jenni earns between [$]25,000 and [$]150,000 per 

month.” (Id. 97.) In reviewing the evidence, USCIS concluded that Dr. Jenni’s evidence 

was insufficient, explaining, “in order to meet this criterion, the petitioner must submit 

documentary evidence of the earnings of those in [her] occupation performing similar work 

at the top level of the field because this is where the petitioner claims to stand.” (Id. 60.) 

USCIS concluded after review of the evidence that “[t]he petitioner’s attempt to use 

average local salary levels does not allow for an appropriate basis for comparison in 

determining a high salary ‘in relation to others in the field.’” (Id. [citing Matter of Price, 

20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (BIA 1994)].) In its decision, USCIS reviewed the evidence 

presented to it and articulated satisfactory, rational reasoning for its conclusion that Dr. 

Jenni failed to meet this criterion. The Court therefore cannot conclude that USCIS’s 

decision on this criterion is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise improper. See Motor Vehicle 

Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 42–43.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of 14
14

3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, after thoroughly reviewing the administrative record and USCIS’s 

decision on each criterion claimed by Dr. Jenni, the Court cannot conclude that USCIS’s 

decision that Dr. Jenni did not meet at least three of the required criteria was “arbitrary, 

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” See

5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have shown nothing 

arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise improper with regards to USCIS’s analysis of the 

evidence presented to it. The Court therefore denies Plaintiffs’ motion for summary 

judgment and grants Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The Court directs 

the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 31, 2019

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of 14