Branski v. Brennan Seng
"USCIS did not adequately explain its conclusion that Branski failed to identify “[p]ublished material about [him] in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to [his] work in the field for which classification is sought,” 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). USCIS appears to have improperly reject purported expert opinions simply because they were not “objective” and failed to consider proffered evidence of the publications’ circulation. Accordingly, remand it necessary to permit USCIS is reassess whether Branski satisfies the 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) criterion. If USCIS finds that Branski satisfies three of the section 204.5(h)(3) criteria, it then must proceed to the second step of the analysis and assess whether he has demonstrated both that he has “a level of expertise indicating that [he] is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor,” 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and that he “has sustained national or international acclaim and that his … achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise,” 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20; Amin, 24 F.4th at 395. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in this decision. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in this decision. This action is dismissed. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 4th day of November, 2024.
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN
U.S. Magistrate Judge"