Kazarian v. USCIS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT  POGHOS KAZARIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 07-56774 v. D.C. No. US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CV-07-03522-R-E  SERVICES, a Bureau of the ORDER AND Department of Homeland Security; OPINION JOHN DOES, 1 through 10, Defendants-Appellees. 

美国联邦第九巡回上诉法院  POGHOS KAZARIAN， 原告-上诉人， 案号 07-56774 诉 地区法院案号 美国公民及移民 CV-07-03522-R-E  服务局，国土安全部 命令及 下属局； 意见书 JOHN DOES，1 至 10， 被告-被上诉人。

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

来自美国加利福尼亚中区联邦地区法院的上诉 Manuel L. Real，地区法官，主审

Argued and Submitted December 9, 2008—Pasadena, California

辩论与提交 2008年12月9日——加利福尼亚州帕萨迪纳

Filed March 4, 2010

归档于2010年3月4日

Before: Harry Pregerson, Dorothy W. Nelson and David R. Thompson, Circuit Judges.

合议庭：Harry Pregerson、Dorothy W. Nelson 和 David R. Thompson，巡回法官。

Opinion by Judge D.W. Nelson; Concurrence by Judge Pregerson

D.W. Nelson 法官撰写意见； Pregerson 法官撰写协同意见

3429

3429

3432 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

3432 KAZARIAN 诉 USCIS

Ruben N. Sarkisian, Glendale, California, for plaintiff- appellant Poghos Kazarian.

Ruben N. Sarkisian，加利福尼亚州格伦代尔，为原告-上诉人 Poghos Kazarian 代理。

Craig W. Kuhn and Elizabeth J. Stevens, Office of Immigra- tion Litigation, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for defendant-appellee U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services.

Craig W. Kuhn 和 Elizabeth J. Stevens，司法部移民诉讼办公室，华盛顿特区；为被告-被上诉人美国公民及移民服务局代理。

The opinion with dissent filed on September 4, 2009, and published at 580 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2009), is withdrawn and superceded by the opinion filed concurrently herewith.

2009年9月4日提交并发表于 580 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) 的意见书及异议，现予撤回，并由同时提交的意见书取代。

With the filing of the new opinion, appellant’s pending petition for rehearing/petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED as moot, without prejudice to refiling a subsequent petition for rehearing and/or petition for rehearing en banc. See 9th Cir. G.O. 5.3(a).

随着新意见书的提交，上诉人待决的再审申请/全席再审申请因无实际意义而 DENIED（驳回），不影响其随后重新提交再审申请和/或全席再审申请。参见 9th Cir. G.O. 5.3(a)。

3433 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

3433 KAZARIAN 诉 USCIS

D.W. NELSON, Senior Circuit Judge:

D.W. NELSON，资深巡回法官：

Poghos Kazarian appeals the District Court’s grant of sum- mary judgment to the United States Citizenship and Immigra- tion Service (“USCIS”), finding that the USCIS’s denial of an “extraordinary ability” visa was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Poghos Kazarian 对地区法院支持美国公民及移民服务局（“USCIS”）的简易判决提出上诉，该判决认定 USCIS 拒绝“杰出能力”签证并非任意、反复无常或违反法律。我们依据 28 U.S.C. § 1291 享有管辖权，并维持原判。

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

事实与程序背景

On December 31, 2003, Poghos Kazarian, a thirty-four- year-old native and citizen of Armenia, filed an application for an employment-based immigrant visa for “aliens of extraordinary ability” (Form I-140) contending that he was an alien with extraordinary ability as a theoretical physicist.

2003年12月31日，Poghos Kazarian，一名34岁的亚美尼亚本土公民，提交了一份基于就业的移民签证申请，类别为“杰出能力外国人”（表格 I-140），主张他是一名作为理论物理学家的杰出能力外国人。

Kazarian received a Ph.D in Theoretical Physics from Yerevan State University (“YSU”) in Yerevan, Armenia, in 1997. From 1997 to 2000, he remained at YSU as a Research Associate, where, among other things, he “reviewe[d] [the] diploma works of the Department’s graduates.”

Kazarian 于1997年在亚美尼亚埃里温的埃里温国立大学（“YSU”）获得理论物理学博士学位。1997年至2000年，他留在 YSU 担任研究助理，期间除其他事项外，他“审阅[了]该系毕业生的学位论文。”

At YSU, Kazarian specialized in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation. According to a colleague, “[t]his work offered a mechanism for the control of solutions’ accuracy, which guarantees the accuracy of calculations in many theories of gravitation.” Kazarian “solve[d] [the] more than 20 year[ ] old problem of construction of the theory, satisfying the cosmog- ony conception of worldwide acknowledged scientist, acade- mician V.A. Hambartsumian.”

在 YSU，Kazarian 专攻非爱因斯坦引力理论。据一位同事称，“[这]项工作提供了一种控制解的精度的机制，这保证了许多引力理论中计算的准确性。”Kazarian“解决[了]超过20年之久的理论构建问题，满足了世界公认科学家、院士 V.A. Hambartsumian 的宇宙起源论构想。”

Since 2000, Kazarian has served as a Physics / Math / Pro- gramming Tutor, an Adjunct Physics and Mathematics Instructor, and a Science Lecture Series speaker at Glendale

自2000年以来，Kazarian 在格伦代尔社区学院（“GCC”）担任物理/数学/编程辅导教师、兼职物理和数学讲师以及科学讲座系列演讲者。

3434 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

3434 KAZARIAN 诉 USCIS

Community College (“GCC”). Between 2000 and 2004, Kazarian’s work at GCC was on a volunteer basis.

2000年至2004年间，Kazarian 在 GCC 的工作是无偿的。

In support of his application, Kazarian submitted several letters of reference. The first reference was a letter from Dr. Kip S. Thorne, the Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics at California’s Institute of Technology. Dr. Thorne, who worked in the same research group as Kazarian, stated that he had “formed a good opinion of Dr. Kazarian’s research. It is of the caliber that one would expect from a young professor at a strong research-oriented university in the United States.” Kazarian also provided letters from professors at YSU, stating that Kazarian “possesse[d] great ability and considerable potency in science,” was “a young scientist with enough sci- entific potential,” had “high professionalism,” and had “dis- played himself as exceptionally diligent, hard-working, [and] highly qualified.” Finally, Kazarian submitted three letters from colleagues at GCC praising his hard work and active participation at GCC.

为支持其申请，Kazarian 提交了几封推荐信。第一封推荐信来自加州理工学院费曼理论物理学教授 Kip S. Thorne 博士。Thorne 博士与 Kazarian 在同一研究组工作，他表示他“对 Kazarian 博士的研究形成了良好的评价。其水准达到了人们对美国一所强大的研究型大学年轻教授的期望。”Kazarian 还提供了 YSU 教授的推荐信，称 Kazarian“在科学上拥有卓越的能力和相当大的潜力”，是“一位具有足够科学潜力的年轻科学家”，具有“高度的专业精神”，并“表现出非凡的勤奋、努力[和]高度合格。”最后，Kazarian 提交了 GCC 同事的三封推荐信，赞扬他的努力工作和在 GCC 的积极参与。

Kazarian also noted that he had authored a self-published textbook, titled “Concepts in Physics: Classical Mechanics.” According to one of his colleagues at GCC, the book “is cer- tain to be required reading in many secondary schools, col- leges and universities throughout the country.” Kazarian, however, presented no evidence that the book was actually used in any class. Kazarian also submitted two scholarly arti- cles where the authors acknowledged him for his useful scien- tific discussions. Kazarian also submitted his resume, which listed six publications in Astrophysics that he had authored or co-authored, as well as one e-print published in the public web archives of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Kazarian 还指出他撰写了一本自行出版的教科书，题为《物理学概念：经典力学》。据他在 GCC 的一位同事称，这本书“必定会成为全国许多中学、学院和大学的必读书目。”然而，Kazarian 没有提供证据表明该书实际上在任何课堂上被使用。Kazarian 还提交了两篇学术文章，作者在文中感谢他有用的科学讨论。Kazarian 还提交了他的简历，其中列出了他撰写或合著的六篇天体物理学出版物，以及在洛斯阿拉莫斯国家实验室公共网络档案中发表的一篇电子预印本。

Finally, Kazarian presented evidence of his Science Lecture Series at GCC. His resume also listed lectures at the 17th and 20th Pacific Coast Gravity Meetings, the Conference on Strong Gravitational Fields at UC Santa Barbara, the 8th International Symposium on the Science and Technology of

最后，Kazarian 提供了他在 GCC 的科学讲座系列的证据。他的简历还列出了在第17届和第20届太平洋海岸引力会议、加州大学圣巴巴拉分校强引力场会议、第8届光源科学与技术国际研讨会以及引力和宇宙学基础国际学校-研讨会上的讲座。

3435 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

3435 KAZARIAN 诉 USCIS

Light Sources, and the Foundations of Gravitation and Cos- mology, International School-Seminar.

光源，以及引力和宇宙学基础，国际学校-研讨会。

In August 2005, the USCIS denied the petition. Kazarian appealed the denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”). The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that Kazarian failed to satisfy any of the evidentiary criteria set forth in the relevant “extraordinary ability” visa regulations. Having exhausted his administrative remedies, Kazarian filed a complaint in the Central District of California. The District Court granted the USCIS’s motion for summary judgment, and Kazarian timely appealed to this court.

2005年8月，USCIS 拒绝了该申请。Kazarian 向行政上诉办公室（“AAO”）提出上诉。AAO 驳回了上诉，认定 Kazarian 未能满足相关“杰出能力”签证法规中规定的任何证据标准。在用尽行政救济后，Kazarian 在加利福尼亚中区联邦地区法院提起诉讼。地区法院批准了 USCIS 的简易判决动议，Kazarian 及时向本法院提出上诉。

STANDARD OF REVIEW

审查标准

This court “review[s] the entry of summary judgment de novo.” Family Inc. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 469 F.3d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir. 2006). “However, the underly- ing agency action may be set aside only if ‘arbitrary, capri- cious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’ ” Id. (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). “We have held it an abuse of discretion for the Service to act if there is no evidence to support the decision or if the decision was based on an improper understanding of the law.” Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305, 1308 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal quotations omitted).

本法院“对简易判决的作出进行重新审查。”Family Inc. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 469 F.3d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir. 2006)。“然而，只有在‘任意、反复无常、滥用自由裁量权或 otherwise 不符合法律’的情况下，才能撤销 underlying 机构行为。”Id.（引用 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)）。“我们认定，如果没有任何证据支持该决定，或者该决定基于对法律的错误理解，则服务局的行为构成滥用自由裁量权。”Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305, 1308 (9th Cir. 1984)（内部引文省略）。

“In circumstances where an agency errs, we may evaluate whether such an error was harmless.” Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1071 (9th Cir. 2004); see 5 U.S.C. § 706. “In the context of agency review, the role of harmless error is constrained. The doctrine may be employed only ‘when a mistake of the administrative body is one that clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of decision reached.’ ” Gifford Pinchot, 378 F.3d at 1071 (citing Buschmann v. Schweiker, 676 F.2d 352, 358 (9th Cir. 1982)) (emphasis added by the Gifford Pinchot court). “We will not usually overturn agency action unless

“在机构犯错的情况下，我们可以评估该错误是否为无害错误。”Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1071 (9th Cir. 2004)；参见 5 U.S.C. § 706。“在机构审查的背景下，无害错误的作用受到限制。该原则只有在‘行政机构的错误明显对所使用的程序或所达成的决定实质没有影响’时才能适用。”Gifford Pinchot, 378 F.3d at 1071（引用 Buschmann v. Schweiker, 676 F.2d 352, 358 (9th Cir. 1982)）（Gifford Pinchot 法院加注强调）。“我们通常不会推翻机构行为，除非

3436 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

3436 KAZARIAN 诉 USCIS

there is a showing of prejudice to the petitioner.” Safari Avia- tion Inc. v. Garvey, 300 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2002).

表明申请人受到损害。”Safari Aviation Inc. v. Garvey, 300 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2002)。

DISCUSSION

讨论

A. THE “EXTRAORDINARY ABILITY” VISA

A. “杰出能力”签证

[1] Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), aliens may apply for a visa on the basis of “extraordinary ability.” An alien can prove an extraordinary ability in one of two ways. The first is “evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, inter- national recognized award).” 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Receipt of the Nobel prize is the quintessential example of a major award. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723(I & II) (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6739. Kazarian concedes that he has won no such prize.

[1] 根据 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)，外国人可以基于“杰出能力”申请签证。外国人可以通过两种方式之一证明杰出能力。第一种是“一次性成就的证据（即重大的、国际公认的奖项）。”8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)。获得诺贝尔奖是重大奖项的典型例子。H.R. Rep. No. 101-723(I & II) (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6739。Kazarian 承认他没有获得此类奖项。

The second way to prove extraordinary ability is to provide evidence of at least three of the following:

证明杰出能力的第二种方式是提供至少以下三项的证据：

(i) Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;

(i) 该外国人在其领域内获得国家级或国际级公认的较低级别奖项或奖励以表彰卓越成就的文件证据；

(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;

(ii) 该外国人加入寻求分类领域内协会的文件证据，这些协会要求其成员取得杰出成就，并由其学科或领域公认的国家或国际专家评判；

(iii) Published material about the alien in profes- sional 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;

(iii) 在专业或主要行业出版物或其他主要媒体上发表的关于该外国人的材料，涉及该外国人在寻求分类领域内的工作。此类证据应包括材料的标题、日期和作者，以及任何必要的翻译；

(iv) Evidence of the alien’s participation, either indi- vidually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of oth-

(iv) 该外国人单独或作为小组成员，担任评判同一或相关领域内其他人工作的证据；

3437 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

3437 KAZARIAN 诉 USCIS

ers in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought;

该领域内其他人工作的证据；

(v) Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, schol- arly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contribu- tions of major significance in the field;

(v) 该外国人在其领域内具有重大意义的原创科学、学术、艺术、体育或商业相关贡献的证据；

(vi) Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media;

(vi) 该外国人在专业或主要行业出版物或其他主要媒体上在该领域发表学术文章的证据；

(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases;

(vii) 该外国人的作品在艺术展览或展示中展出的证据；

(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establish- ments that have a distinguished reputation;

(viii) 该外国人在具有卓越声誉的组织或机构中担任领导或关键角色的证据；

(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

(ix) 该外国人相对于领域内其他人，因提供服务而获得高薪或其他显著高报酬的证据；或

(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the per- forming arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales.

(x) 表演艺术领域商业成功的证据，如票房收入或唱片、磁带、光盘或视频销售。

8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). If a petitioner has submitted the requi- site evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence dem- onstrates 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). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered “sustained national or international acclaim” are eligible for an “extraordinary ability” visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i).

8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)。如果申请人提交了所需证据，USCIS 将确定该证据是否既证明“专业水平表明该个人是已升至其领域内最顶尖的少数人之一”，8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)，又证明“该外国人已持续获得国家或国际赞誉，且其成就在专业领域内得到认可。”8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)。只有成就获得“持续国家或国际赞誉”的外国人才有资格获得“杰出能力”签证。8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i)。

3438 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

3438 KAZARIAN 诉 USCIS

The “extraordinary ability” visa can be better understood in context. Under the Immigration Act of 1990, thousands of employment-based visas were created according to three employment preferences. Pub. L. No. 101-649, 101 Stat. 4978. “Aliens with extraordinary ability” are “priority work- ers” and have the first preference. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1).

“杰出能力”签证在语境中可以更好地理解。根据《1990年移民法》，数千个就业类签证依据三类就业优先类别设立。Pub. L. No. 101-649, 101 Stat. 4978。“具有杰出能力的外国人”是“优先工作者”，享有第一优先类别。8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)。

“Extraordinary ability” is distinct from “exceptional abili- ty,” however, which receives second preference. Compare id. § 1153(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added), with id. § 1153(b)(2) (emphasis added). 1 To qualify for the “exceptional ability” visa, a petitioner must make a lesser showing of ability, and need only show three of the following:

然而，“杰出能力”与“特殊才能”不同，后者享有第二优先类别。比较同上§ 1153(b)(1)(A)（增加强调），与同上§ 1153(b)(2)（增加强调）。 1 要获得“特殊才能”签证资格，申请人必须作出较低的才能证明，且仅需证明以下三项：

(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 excep- tional ability;

(A) 显示该外国人拥有与特殊才能领域相关的学院、大学、学校或其他教育机构的学位、文凭、证书或类似奖项的官方学术记录；

(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 occupa- tion for which he or she is being sought;

(B) 以现任或前任雇主信函形式提供的证据，显示该外国人在其被寻求的 occupation 中拥有至少10年全职经验；

(C) A license to practice the profession or certifica- tion for a particular profession or occupation;

(C) 从事该专业的执照或特定专业或职业的认证；

(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demon- strates exceptional ability;

(D) 显示该外国人已获得薪酬或其他服务报酬的证据，该薪酬或报酬证明其特殊才能；

(E) Evidence of membership in professional associa- tions; or

(E) 专业协会会员资格的证据；或

3439 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

3439 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or busi- ness organizations.

(F) 同行、政府实体或专业或商业组织对其成就及对行业或领域重大贡献的认可证据。

8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii).

8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)。

[2] To qualify for an “exceptional ability” visa, however, the alien must also provide evidence that his services are 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 United 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)(3)(5), with id. § 204.5(k)(4).

[2] 然而，要获得“特殊才能”签证资格，该外国人还必须提供证据证明其服务为美国雇主所寻求。同上。“杰出能力”签证因此具有相当大的优势。与“特殊才能”签证申请不同，“杰出能力”申请不依赖于美国实际就业offer，且免于耗时的劳工证程序，该程序要求雇主首先测试市场是否存在现有合格 domestic workers。比较同上§ 204.5(h)(3)(5)，与同上§ 204.5(k)(4)。

[3] Interpretation of the statutory and regulatory require- ments for the “extraordinary ability” visa presents a question of first impression for this court. The scant caselaw indicates that “[t]he regulations regarding this preference classification are extremely restrictive.” 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 the visa as a baseball coach for the Chicago White Sox because his acclaim was limited to his skills as a player and not as a coach); cf. Grimson v. INS, 934 F.Supp. 965, 969 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (finding denial arbitrary and capricious where NHL hockey enforcer was one of the top three players in the world and agency improperly discounted the importance of the enforcer position); Muni v. INS, 891 F.Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (finding the agency improperly discounted evidence for an NHL hockey player who won the Stanley Cup three times, won “most underrated defenseman,” was paid more than the average NHL player, submitted numerous articles establishing his stature in the hockey world, and provided affidavits from eight renowned hockey players stating that he was highly

[3] 对“杰出能力”签证法定和监管要求的解释向本法院提出了一个首次印象问题。稀少的判例法表明，“关于这一优先类别的法规极其严格。” Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp.2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill.2002)（认定“可以说是韩国历史上最著名的棒球运动员之一”不符合作为芝加哥白袜队棒球教练的签证资格，因为其声誉仅限于其作为球员的技能而非作为教练的技能）；cf. Grimson v. INS, 934 F.Supp. 965, 969 (N.D. Ill. 1996)（认定拒绝任意且反复无常，其中NHL冰球执法者是世界上排名前三的球员之一，且机构不当贬低了执法者位置的重要性）；Muni v. INS, 891 F.Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1995)（认定机构不当贬低了NHL冰球运动员的证据，该运动员三次赢得Stanley Cup，赢得“最被低估后卫”，薪酬高于NHL球员平均水平，提交了大量文章确立其在冰球界的地位，并提供了八位著名冰球运动员的宣誓书声明他受到高度

3440 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

3440 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

regarded); Buletini v. INS, 860 F.Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (finding denial was arbitrary and capricious where Albanian physician won a national award, published a medi- cal dictionary and numerous articles, was responsible for gen- eral health projects, and served as an adjunct professor); Matter of Price, 20 I. & N. Dec. 953, 955-56 (BIA 1994) (granting the visa petition to a professional golfer who won the 1983 World Series of Golf and the 1991 Canadian Open, ranked 10th in the 1989 PGA Tour, collected $714,389 in 1991, provided numerous affidavits from well-known and cel- ebrated golfers, and received widespread major media cover- age).

评价）；Buletini v. INS, 860 F.Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994)（认定拒绝任意且反复无常，其中阿尔巴尼亚医生赢得国家奖项，出版医学词典和大量文章，负责一般健康项目，并担任兼职教授）；Matter of Price, 20 I. & N. Dec. 953, 955-56 (BIA 1994)（授予职业高尔夫球手签证申请，该球手赢得1983年World Series of Golf和1991年Canadian Open，在1989年PGA Tour排名第10，1991年收取$714,389，提供了知名和著名高尔夫球手的众多宣誓书，并获得广泛主要媒体报道）。

B. APPLICATION TO KAZARIAN

B. 适用于KAZARIAN

The AAO found that Kazarian did not meet any of the reg- ulatory criteria. Only four of the ten are at issue in this appeal. We find that the AAO erred in its consideration of two of these issues.

AAO认定Kazarian不符合任何监管标准。本上诉中仅涉及十项中的四项。我们认定AAO在其中两个问题的考虑上有误。

1. Authorship of Scholarly Articles in the Field of Endeavor

1. 在努力领域内学术文章的作者身份

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), Kazarian submitted proof of his six articles in Astrophysics and his e-print in the Los Alamos National Laboratory archives, but did not demon- strate that other scholars had cited to his publications. The AAO held that without evidence of such citations, Kazarian’s articles did not meet the regulatory definition of evidence, because “publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of sustained acclaim” and “we must consider the research community’s reaction to these articles.”

根据8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)，Kazarian提交了其在Astrophysics的六篇文章和其在Los Alamos National Laboratory档案中的e-print证明，但未证明其他学者引用其出版物。AAO认定，没有此类引用证据，Kazarian的文章不符合证据的监管定义，因为“学术文章的发表并非自动成为持续赞誉的证据”且“我们必须考虑研究界对这些文章的反应”。

[4] The AAO’s conclusion rests on an improper under- standing of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Nothing in that provi- sion requires a petitioner to demonstrate the research community’s reaction to his published articles before those articles can be considered as evidence, and neither USCIS nor

[4] AAO的结论基于对8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)的不当理解。该条款中没有任何内容要求申请人在其发表文章可被视为证据之前证明研究界的反应，且USCIS和

3441 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

3441 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

an AAO may unilaterally impose novel substantive or eviden- tiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5. Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 758 (9th Cir. 2008). While other authors’ citations (or a lack thereof) might be relevant to the final merits determination of whether a peti- tioner is at the very top of his or her field of endeavor, they are not relevant to the antecedent procedural question of whether the petitioner has provided at least three types of evi- dence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). “If the agency intended to impose [peer citations] as a threshold requirement, we have little doubt that such records would have been included among the detailed substantive and evidentiary requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5[(h)(3)(i)-(x)].” Love Korean Church, 549 F.3d at 758.

AAO不得单方面施加超出8 C.F.R. § 204.5所规定的新颖实质性或证据要求。Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 758 (9th Cir. 2008)。虽然其他作者的引用（或缺乏引用）可能与申请人是否处于其努力领域最顶端的最终 merits 认定相关，但它们与申请人是否已提供至少三类证据这一先行程序问题无关。8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)。“如果机构意图将[同行引用]作为门槛要求施加，我们毫不怀疑此类记录会被纳入8 C.F.R. § 204.5[(h)(3)(i)-(x)]所规定的详细实质性和证据要求之中。” Love Korean Church, 549 F.3d at 758。

2. Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others

2. 作为他人工作的评判者参与

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), Kazarian submitted proof that he was a judge of graduate-level diploma works at Yerevan State University. The AAO held that “reviewing ‘diploma works’ for fellow students at one’s own university is not persuasive evidence of acclaim beyond that university,” and that absent “evidence that the petitioner served as an external dissertation reviewer for a university with which he is not otherwise affiliated,” Kazarian’s submission did not meet the regulatory definition of evidence.

根据8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)，Kazarian提交了其在Yerevan State University担任研究生文凭作品评判者的证明。AAO认定，“在自己大学评审同学的‘文凭作品’并非超越该大学赞誉的有说服力证据”，且缺乏“申请人曾担任与其无其他关联的大学的外部论文评审人的证据”，Kazarian的提交不符合证据的监管定义。

[5] The AAO’s conclusion rests on an improper under- standing of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Nothing in that provi- sion suggests that whether judging university dissertations counts as evidence turns on which university the judge is affiliated with. Again, while the AAO’s analysis might be rel- evant to a final merits determination, the AAO may not uni- laterally impose a novel evidentiary requirement. Love Korean Church, 549 F.3d at 758.

[5] AAO的结论基于对8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)的不当理解。该条款中没有任何内容表明评判大学论文是否算作证据取决于评判者隶属于哪所大学。同样，虽然AAO的分析可能与最终 merits 认定相关，但AAO不得单方面施加新颖的证据要求。Love Korean Church, 549 F.3d at 758。

3442 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

3442 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

3. Evidence of Original Scientific or Scholarly Contributions of Major Significance in the Field of Endeavor

3. 在努力领域内具有重大意义的原创科学或学术贡献的证据

[6] Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), Kazarian submit- ted letters from physics professors attesting to his contribu- tions in the field. The AAO found that his contributions were not major, and thus did not meet the regulatory definition of evidence. The AAO’s analysis here is consistent with the rele- vant regulatory language, and the AAO’s determination that Kazarian did not submit material that met the regulatory defi- nition of evidence set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) is nei- ther arbitrary, capricious, nor an abuse of discretion.

[6] 根据8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)，Kazarian提交了物理学教授证明其在该领域贡献的信函。AAO认定其贡献并非重大，因此不符合证据的监管定义。AAO在此处的分析与相关监管语言一致，且AAO认定Kazarian未提交符合8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)所规定证据监管定义的材料，既非任意、反复无常，也非滥用自由裁量权。

4. Display of the Alien’s Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases

4. 在艺术展览或展示中展示该外国人的作品

[7] Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), Kazarian sub- mitted proof that he had self-published a textbook, had given lectures at a community college, and had made presentations at conferences. The AAO found that none of these activities were displays at artistic exhibitions or showcases. The AAO’s analysis here is again consistent with the relevant regulatory language, and the AAO’s determination that Kazarian did not submit evidence as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor an abuse of discretion.

[7] 根据8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)，Kazarian提交了其自行出版教科书、在社区学院授课并在会议上作报告的证明。AAO认定这些活动均非艺术展览或展示中的展示。AAO在此处的分析再次与相关监管语言一致，且AAO认定Kazarian未提交8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)所定义的证据，既非任意、反复无常，也非滥用自由裁量权。

C. HARMLESSNESS

C. 无害性

Having found that the AAO erred by unilaterally introduc- ing new evidentiary requirements into 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), we must now determine whether these errors were prejudicial. 5 U.S.C. § 706; Tucson Herpe- tological Soc. v. Salazar, 566 F.3d 870, 879-80 (9th Cir. 2009). They were not.

在认定AAO通过单方面将新证据要求引入8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)和(vi)而犯错后，我们现在必须确定这些错误是否具有偏见。5 U.S.C. § 706；Tucson Herpetological Soc. v. Salazar, 566 F.3d 870, 879-80 (9th Cir. 2009)。它们没有。

The AAO held that Kazarian provided zero of the ten types of evidence set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The

AAO认定Kazarian提供了8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)所规定十类证据中的零类。该

3443 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

3443 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

AAO should have held that Kazarian presented two types of evidence. The regulation requires three types of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).

AAO本应认定Kazarian提供了两类证据。该法规要求三类证据。8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)。

[8] Whether an applicant for an extraordinary visa presents two types of evidence or none, the proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did), and the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded). 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Here, although the AAO committed clear legal error, that error “clearly had no bearing” on either “the procedure used or the substance of decision reached.” Gifford Pinchot, 378 F.3d at 1071 (quotations omitted).

[8] 无论杰出签证申请人提供两类证据还是零类证据，适当程序是计算所提供的证据类型（AAO已这样做），适当结论是申请人未能满足三类证据的监管要求（如AAO所结论）。8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)。在此，尽管AAO犯了明显的法律错误，但该错误“显然与”“所使用的程序或所达成的决定实质”均“无关”。Gifford Pinchot, 378 F.3d at 1071（引文省略）。

CONCLUSION

结论

[9] Although Kazarian appears to be a well-respected, promising physicist, who may well have been able to qualify for an “exceptional ability” visa, he instead applied for an “extraordinary ability” visa, and presented only two of the types of evidence set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and the “extraordinary ability” visa regulations require three. The AAO’s conclusion that Kazarian presented zero types of evidence was in error, but the error was harmless. Kazarian failed to establish his eligibility for an “extraordinary ability” visa, and the District Court correctly granted USCIS’ sum- mary judgment motion.

[9] 尽管Kazarian似乎是一位备受尊重、有前途的物理学家，他很可能本有资格获得“特殊才能”签证，但他反而申请了“杰出能力”签证，且仅提供了8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)所规定证据类型中的两类，而“杰出能力”签证法规要求三类。AAO认定Kazarian提供了零类证据的结论有误，但该错误无害。Kazarian未能确立其“杰出能力”签证资格，且地区法院正确批准了USCIS的简易判决动议。

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring:

PREGERSON，巡回法官， concurring：

I am pleased to concur in Judge Nelson’s opinion. I write separately, however, to emphasize the injustice perpetrated by our immigration laws and system in this case. Dr. Poghos

我很高兴同意Nelson法官的意见。然而，我另行撰写，以强调我国移民法律和制度在本案中造成的不公正。Poghos博士

3444 KAZARIAN v. USCIS

3444 KAZARIAN 诉 USCIS

Kazarian received his Ph.D. in the field of theoretical physics from Yerevan State University and, since arriving in the United States, has continued to research and teach in this challenging field. Starting around 2000, Dr. Kazarian partici- pated in a research group headed by Dr. Kip Thorne at the California Institute of Technology. Dr. Thorne, among others, submitted a letter in support of Dr. Kazarian’s visa applica- tion. Dr. Kazarian volunteers his teaching services at Glendale Community College and has authored and published his own physics textbook. Dr. Kazarian has received strong words of praise from colleagues at Yerevan State University, Glendale Community College, and the California Institute of Technol- ogy. Dr. Kazarian’s contributions in the United States have been undoubtedly valuable. Forcing Dr. Kazarian to depart from our country would be undoubtedly wasteful and make one think that there is something haywire in our system. Although, as the opinion points out, Dr. Kazarian did not sub- mit three of the types of evidence required for the “extraordi- nary visa,” he would have been an excellent candidate for an “exceptional ability” visa. Indeed, it was likely the error of an ineffective lawyer that led Kazarian to apply for the wrong visa in the first place. 1

Kazarian 在埃里温国立大学获得理论物理学领域的博士学位，并且自抵达美国以来，一直在这个具有挑战性的领域继续研究和教学。大约从2000年开始，Kazarian 博士参加了由 Kip Thorne 博士在加利福尼亚理工学院领导的研究小组。Thorne 博士等人提交了一封信，支持 Kazarian 博士的签证申请。Kazarian 博士在格伦代尔社区学院志愿服务教学，并撰写和出版了自己的物理学教科书。Kazarian 博士得到了埃里温国立大学、格伦代尔社区学院和加利福尼亚理工学院同事们的强烈赞扬。Kazarian 博士在美国的贡献无疑是有价值的。强迫 Kazarian 博士离开我们的国家无疑将是浪费，并让人认为我们的系统出了什么问题。尽管正如意见书所指出的，Kazarian 博士没有提交“杰出签证”所需的三种类型的证据，但他本应是“特殊才能”签证的极佳候选人。事实上，很可能是一位无效律师的错误，才导致 Kazarian 一开始就申请了错误的签证。 1