## Facts

- The Young China Daily was a Chinese-language newspaper serving the Chinese community in California, with a circulation of about 23,000 readers.
- The newspaper sought to hire Hung‑Jen (Henry) Kuo, a native and citizen of Taiwan, for a newly created graphic designer position.
- The newspaper described the graphic designer’s duties as including art and copy layout, arranging illustrative material, and serving as a liaison with advertisers purchasing space in the paper.
- Kuo held a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in Graphic Design from the California College of Arts and Crafts.
- The newspaper set Kuo’s salary at $16,800 per year.
- On December 29, 1986, the newspaper filed a Form I‑129 petition with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to classify Kuo as an H‑1 temporary worker of “distinguished merit and ability” under INA § 101(a)(15)(H)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i) (pre‑1990 version).
- Kuo also applied to change his nonimmigrant status under INA § 248, 8 U.S.C. § 1258.
- On March 23, 1987, the INS Western adjudication director denied the H‑1 petition, concluding the newspaper had not shown that the job duties required the services of a “member of the professions.”
- The denial relied heavily on the newspaper’s small size, the offered salary, and the lack of a prior record of employing professionals as graphic designers.
- The newspaper appealed, but the INS Administrative Appeals Unit dismissed the appeal on May 27, 1988, and Kuo’s status application was also denied.
- The newspaper and Kuo sued in federal district court, alleging the denial was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the INS acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or abused its discretion under the APA by denying H‑1 classification on the ground that the newspaper’s graphic designer position did not require a “member of the professions” and therefore was not a position of “distinguished merit and ability.”
2. Whether the INS improperly relied on the employer’s size, the salary offered, and the employer’s prior hiring history (despite the position being newly created) instead of focusing on the position’s actual duties and requirements.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and denied the defendants’ cross-motion.
- The court held the INS decision was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion under the APA.
- The court set aside the denial and ordered relief consistent with its ruling, effectively requiring approval of the H‑1 petition for the graphic designer position.

## Legal Principles

- Under APA review, an agency must consider the relevant materials, avoid irrelevant factors, and explain a rational connection between the record and its decision; a conclusory or assumption-driven denial cannot stand.
- For H‑1 “distinguished merit and ability” adjudications under the pre‑1990 framework, the inquiry centers on whether the position is professional in nature (i.e., requires a “member of the professions” under the governing regulations), not on generalized assumptions about an employer.
- An employer’s small size, a comparatively low wage, and an absence of past professional hiring do not, without record support tying those facts to the job’s actual requirements, justify finding that a position is nonprofessional.
- Where a position is newly created, the employer’s lack of a track record filling that specific role cannot logically serve as a basis to deny the petition; the focus must remain on the stated duties and the requirements for performing them.
- An agency may not treat the same occupation as professional in the abstract but nonprofessional in a specific setting (such as a smaller publication) without a record-based explanation for why the duties and required training differ.

## Conclusion

Young China Daily v. Chappell held that the INS acted unlawfully in denying H‑1 classification for a newly created newspaper graphic designer role when the agency relied mainly on employer size, pay level, and the absence of prior professional hiring rather than evaluating whether the job’s duties and requirements called for a professional; the court set aside the denial as arbitrary and capricious and ordered approval consistent with its ruling.


Young China Daily v. Chappell, 742 F. Supp. 552 (1989)