Kazarian v. USCIS refers to a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 4, 2010, pertaining to a decision by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on a Form I-140 EB-1 application. [1] [2] The decision led the USCIS to issue a policy memo (dated December 22, 2010) to change its adjudication process for EB-1 and EB-2 petitions to a "two-step review" where the first step would focus on counting pieces of evidence and the second step would be a final merits determination. [3] The case has been cited by USCIS as well as by petitioners in hundreds of Form I-140 petitions and appeals since 2010. [2] [4]
The EB-1 category was introduced as part of the Immigration Act of 1990. Since that time, the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), and later, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have worked to clarify the process for EB-1 petitions. Some key developments prior to the Kazarian case are listed below: [5]
Poghos Kazarian grew up in Armenia. He received a Ph.D in Theoretical Physics from Yerevan State University in Yerevan, Armenia in 1997. From 1997 to 2000, he remained at YSU as a Research Associate, where he specialized in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation. From 2000 to 2004, he worked as a Physics/Math/Programming Tutor, an Adjunct Physics and Mathematics Instructor, and a Science Lecture Series speaker at Glendale Community College, California, in the United States. He was also a member of a research group at the California Institute of Technology, located close to Glendale Community College, where he worked with American theoretical physicist Kip Thorne. He also authored the self-published textbook Concepts in Physics: Classical Mechanics. He published in journals such as Astrophysics and worked on cosmogony problems posed by Victor Ambartsumian. [1] [7]
Kazarian's time in the United States was spent on a visitor visa (B visa) that precludes formal employment. His teaching and tutoring work were carried out in a volunteer capacity, though he did earn some income as reported on a Form 1040. Although he was listed as working at YSU till 2000, his immigration documentation shows that he had been in the United States in visitor status since October 1998. [1] [7]
On December 31, 2003, at the age of 34, Kazarian submitted a Form I-140 petition for EB-1 status. [1] Kazarian's petition was filed by the lawyer George Verdin. [1] [2] Verdin had been disbarred from law practice in the state of Hawaii in 1999 and placed on the Executive Office for Immigration Review's List of Currently Disciplined Practitioners in 2000. [8] Verdin's history as a lawyer would be referenced in later discussions of the appropriateness of the petition category and evidence submitted. [1] [2]
The petition included support for the following pieces of evidence that were used to justify eligibility for EB-1 status; at least three pieces of evidence must be matched in order to qualify for the EB-1: [7]
Below are the remaining types of evidence that can be considered for an EB-1 application, but that were of less relevance to the petition:
In August 2005, Kazarian's Form I-140 EB-1 petition was denied by the USCIS California Service Center. [1] Kazarian appealed the denial. The USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal on September 28, 2006. The case as decided by the AAO is referred to as Matter of Kazarian, consistent with the USCIS' naming of appeal cases. [7]
The AAO concurred with the reasoning offered by the California Service Center for denial, and provided additional elaboration on some points. The AAO's decision did not admit any of the lines of evidence that the petitioner had used, noting that they either did not apply or fell far short of the level needed for EB-1 status. Below is a summary of AAO's reasons for rejecting the various lines of evidence that were seriously considered: [7]
Having exhausted administrative remedies provided within the immigration bureaucracy, Kazarian filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Central District of California. [1] The USCIS filed a motion for summary judgment, and the judge Manuel Real granted the motion. [1] Kazarian timely appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. [1]
The case was argued and submitted on December 9, 2008. An initial opinion and dissent were filed on September 4, 2009. [1] The initial opinion upheld the USCIS and AAO's decision completely. In response, Bernard Wolfsdorf, an immigration lawyer who has served as president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, sought review of the decision. According to immigration lawyer Cyrus D. Mehta, who informally helped with brainstorming, the purpose of seeking review was not to overturn the decision in its entirety but to discredit some of the AAO's reasoning. [9]
The decision was filed on March 4, 2010. The opinion was delivered by the judge Dorothy Wright Nelson, with concurrence by Harry Pregerson. [1] Although the decision was against the petitioner, the arguments included in the court's opinion were considered a victory by immigration lawyers at the time, accomplishing the purpose sought by the push to seek review. [9]
The court noted that the AAO had concluded that Kazarian had provided evidence for zero of the ten types of evidence (compared to the minimum requirement of three). However, the court argued that for two of the ten types of evidence, Kazarian had provided enough initial evidence and the AAO's grounds for rejecting the evidence were based on a misinterpretation of the regulations. The two lines of evidence where the court said that AAO had erred were: [1]
In the process of elaborating on its reasoning, the court proposed a two-step process, as follows: [1]
The court held that the AAO had erred by imposing additional evidentiary requirements. However, since this error was made on only two of the ten lines of evidence, and the petition should have been rejected anyway, the error was "harmless": it did not materially affect the adjudication. [1]
Pregerson, while concurring with Nelson's opinion, noted that Kazarian would have been an excellent candidate for the EB-2 visa (exceptional ability) and that it was a mistake on the part of his lawyer to suggest he apply for the EB-1. This was consistent with the fact that Kazarian's original lawyer, George Verdin, was on the List of Currently Disciplined Practitioners maintained by the Executive Office for Immigration Review. [1] [2]
On August 20, 2010, the USCIS published an interim policy memo for comment (comment period ending September 3, 2010). The memo proposed using the two-step process proposed by the court in its decision on the case. The memo accordingly announced corresponding changes to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (Chapter 22.2, with the update called AFM Update AD11-14), the manual used by USCIS officers (known as Immigration Service Officers, or ISOs) while adjudicating cases.
The USCIS described the two steps as follows: [10]
The official version of the memo was published on December 22, 2010, and the changes to the Adjudicator's Field Manual were finalized. [3]
The case and the subsequent USCIS policy changes affected the way subsequent EB-1 petitions were prepared, as well as the way USCIS evaluated these petitions. The impact can be seen from the large number of AAO cases since 2010 where Kazarian v. USCIS has been cited. [4]
One recurrent theme of advice for a successful EB-1 petition after Kazarian has been to focus the petition on the lines of evidence where the strongest case can be made, and make a case using those lines of evidence based on strong, objective evidence meeting USCIS' regulatory guidelines. [11] [12]
On August 18, 2011, the AAO announced that it was seeking amicus curiae briefs addressing its December 2010 policy memo. [5] [13] A number of briefs were submitted, [14] including one by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). [15] The AILA's brief was critical of USCIS's current framework for final merits determination, and argued that the two-step approach should look as follows: [2] [15]
Opinions similar to the AILA's have been voiced by immigration lawyers discussing Kazarian in subsequent years. [2] [16]
On December 29, 2011, the DHS Ombudsman published the following recommendations: [5]
The reasoning in Kazarian v. USCIS was upheld by courts in later cases, such as Rijal v. USCIS , where the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington rebuked the USCIS for conflating the two steps of its two-step approach in the reasoning it used to reject petitioner Anil Rijal's EB-1 petition. [2] Although this court case was decided after the Kazarian memo was official practice, the USCIS' denial of the petition had happened prior to the memo. [17]
A green card, known officially as a permanent resident card, is an identity document which shows that a person has permanent residency in the United States. Green card holders are formally known as lawful permanent residents (LPRs). As of 2019, there are an estimated 13.9 million green card holders, of whom 9.1 million are eligible to become United States citizens. Approximately 18,700 of them serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.
An O visa is a classification of non-immigrant temporary worker visa granted by the United States to an alien "who possesses extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, or who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry and has been recognized nationally or internationally for those achievements", and to certain assistants and immediate family members of such aliens.
A K-1 visa is a visa issued to the fiancé or fiancée of a United States citizen to enter the United States. A K-1 visa requires a foreigner to marry his or her U.S. citizen petitioner within 90 days of entry, or depart the United States. Once the couple marries, the foreign citizen can adjust status to become a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Although a K-1 visa is legally classified as a non-immigrant visa, it usually leads to important immigration benefits and is therefore often processed by the Immigrant Visa section of United States embassies and consulates worldwide.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that administers the country's naturalization and immigration system. It is a successor to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which was dissolved by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and replaced by three components within the DHS: USCIS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
A Request for Evidence (RFE) is a request issued by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to petitioners for residency, citizenship, family visas, and employment visas. Examples of petitions for which a RFE may be issued are Form I-129, Form I-140, and Form I-130.
The EB-1 visa is a preference category for United States employment-based permanent residency. It is intended for "priority workers". Those are foreign nationals who either have "extraordinary abilities", or are "outstanding professors or researchers", and also includes "some executives and managers of foreign companies who are transferred to the US". It allows them to remain permanently in the US.
EB-2 is an immigrant visa preference category for United States employment-based permanent residency, created by the Immigration Act of 1990. The category includes "members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent", and "individuals who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States". Applicants must generally have an approved labor certification, a job offer, and their employer must have filed an Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker with the USCIS.
Alien of extraordinary ability is an alien classification by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The United States may grant a priority visa to an alien who is able to demonstrate "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics" or through some other extraordinary career achievements.
Bernard P. Wolfsdorf is an American immigration lawyer, and former President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). He is the founder and Managing Partner of Wolfsdorf Immigration Law Group, located in Los Angeles and New York.
Premium Processing Service is an optional premium service offered by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to employers filing Form I-129 or Form I-140. To avail of the service, the employer needs to file Form I-907 and include a fee that is $1,500 for the H-2B and R classifications and $2,500 for all others.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issues a number of forms for people to submit to them relating to immigrant and non-immigrant visa statuses. These forms begin with the letter "I". None of the forms directly grants a United States visa, but approval of these forms may provide authorization for staying or extending one's stay in the United States as well as authorization for work. Some United States visas require an associated approved USCIS immigration form to be submitted as part of the application.
Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative is a form submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services by a United States citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident petitioning for an immediate or close relative intending to immigrate to the United States. It is one of numerous USCIS immigration forms. As with all USCIS petitions, the person who submits the petition is called the petitioner and the relative on whose behalf the petition is made is called the beneficiary. The USCIS officer who evaluates the petition is called the adjudicator.
A Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) is a notice issued by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to petitioners for residency, citizenship, family visas, and employment visas. Examples of petitions for which a NOID may be issued are Form I-129, Form I-140, and Form I-130.
Consular nonreviewability refers to the doctrine in immigration law in the United States where the visa decisions made by United States consular officers cannot be appealed in the United States judicial system. It is closely related to the plenary power doctrine that immunizes from judicial review the substantive immigration decisions of the United States Congress and the executive branch of the United States government.
A Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) is a communication sent by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to a petitioner about a previously approved petition, telling him or her that the USCIS intends to revoke the petition, along with the reasons for revocation, and giving the petitioner a fixed amount of time to respond. NOIRs may be issued for immigrant visa petitions and for non-immigrant visa petitions.
The National Visa Center (NVC) is a center that is part of the U.S. Department of State that plays the role of holding United States immigrant visa petitions approved by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services until an immigrant visa number becomes available for the petition, at which point it arranges for the visa applicant(s) to take the visa interview at a consulate abroad. It is located in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. It was established on July 26, 1994, on the site of an Air Force base that was closed down by The Pentagon.
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker is a form submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) by a prospective employer to petition an alien to work in the US on a permanent basis. This is done in the case when the worker is deemed extraordinary in some sense or when qualified workers do not exist in the US. The employer who files is called the petitioner, and the alien employee is called the beneficiary; these two can coincide in the case of a self-petitioner. The form is 6 pages long with a separate 10-page instructions document as of 2016. It is one of the USCIS immigration forms.
A National Interest Waiver is an exemption from the labor certification process and job offer requirement for advanced degree/exceptional ability workers applying for an EB-2 Visa for Immigration into the United States.
The Administrative Appeals Office, full name USCIS Administrative Appeals Office, and also known as the AAO and USCIS AAO, is an office within United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that can be used by petitioners to appeal adverse USCIS decisions made on their petitions. It is located in Washington, D.C., and all its in-person functions happen only in Washington, D.C.
Tenrec v. USCIS, colloquially known as the H-1B Lottery Lawsuit, was a class action lawsuit brought against United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, challenging the lottery process used to decide which cap-subject H-1B Form I-129 petitions to adjudicate in case more petitions were received than the cap for the fiscal year. The plaintiffs were two pairs of H-1B petitioner (employer) and beneficiary. The case was decided against the plaintiffs, and an appeal was withdrawn after both plaintiffs withdrew.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)