## Facts

- Allan Stuart Grimson, a Canadian citizen and NHL hockey player, sought employment-based immigrant classification as an alien of “extraordinary ability” in athletics under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A).
- Grimson had played professional hockey since the 1982–83 season and in the NHL since 1989; at the time of the litigation he played for the Detroit Red Wings as an “enforcer.”
- The INS denied the petition, and the Administrative Appeals Unit (AAU) affirmed, finding Grimson had not shown “sustained national or international acclaim,” was not among the “small percentage” at the top of the field, and had not shown prospective substantial benefit.
- Grimson sought judicial review; the district court twice remanded, directing the agency to compare Grimson to other professional hockey players who had received extraordinary-ability classification and to consider comparative evidence of his skill, salary, and role against similarly situated players (including those playing the same position/role).
- On remand, Grimson submitted comparative salary/contract evidence, a salary table, press coverage, and an affidavit from former NHL player/commentator Darren Pang stating Grimson was among the highest-rated and highest-paid enforcers in the NHL.
- The INS again denied the petition and the AAU again affirmed, leading to the present action on cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the INS’s repeated denial of Grimson’s extraordinary-ability petition was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under Administrative Procedure Act review standards.
2. Whether the agency failed to comply with the district court’s remand instructions requiring meaningful consideration of comparative evidence and consistency with prior grants to similarly situated professional hockey players.

## Decision

- The court granted Grimson’s motion for summary judgment and denied the INS’s cross-motion.
- The court reversed the agency’s denial of the extraordinary-ability petition.
- The court concluded the denial was legally unsustainable on the administrative record, including because the agency did not adequately engage with the comparative evidence and the remand directives.

## Legal Principles

- Agency decisions on visa petition classifications are reviewable under the APA’s “arbitrary and capricious/abuse of discretion” standard; deference does not permit unreasoned outcomes.
- When a court remands with specific instructions, the agency must implement those directions and address the ordered evidentiary framework in its reasoning.
- An agency must provide a reasoned explanation connecting the record evidence to its conclusions, especially where comparative evidence and past agency practice are central to applying a standard such as “extraordinary ability.”
- Unexplained inconsistency with materially similar prior agency approvals can support a finding that a denial is arbitrary or an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The district court set aside and reversed the INS’s denial of Grimson’s extraordinary-ability petition, holding that the agency acted arbitrarily and abused its discretion by failing to follow remand instructions and by not providing a reasoned, consistent explanation for rejecting substantial comparative evidence of top-level professional achievement.


Grimson v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 934 F. Supp. 965 (N.D. Ill. 1996)