Visinscaia v. Napolitano

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that while reading the regulation to require evidence of multiple awards “seems slightly strained, the Court might well believe deference is required”
• holding agency decision not arbitrary or capricious where denial of contributions criteria was based on references letters’ lack of specifics showing major significance of contributions
• upholding the AAO’s application of a criterion because “neither the statute nor the regulation forecloses [the AAO’s] particular interpretation”
• upholding agency decision that rejected letters that did not provide “specific evidence that [the applicant's] techniques were being used by others in the field”
• upholding agency denial on criterion five because support letters claiming generally that dancer’s technique was being widely used by competitors did not “provide[] specific information relating to the impact of [applicant’s] dance technique on the field as a whole”
• AAO rationally “discounted the media coverage of the award, which amounted to one mention in a newspaper whose circulation is unknown”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).