Oleg Churyumov v. Us Citizenship and Immigration Services

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OLEG CHURYUMOV,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 19-36094
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00841-RAJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN Circuit Judges.
Oleg Churyumov appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his action challenging the denial of his petition for an “extraordinary ability”
employment visa. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Churyumov’s request for
oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
FILED
MAY 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-36094
novo the entry of summary judgment, and will set aside an agency decision only if
it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance
with law.” Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment for United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) because USCIS properly
considered the evidence Churyumov submitted with his petition and concluded that
he did not meet the high standard for an “extraordinary ability” employment visa.
See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-21 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that
once a petitioner submits the required evidence, USCIS determines whether that
evidence demonstrates 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” and “sustained national or international acclaim” (citation and internal
quotation marks)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as meritless Churyumov’s contentions that the process by which
USCIS considered his employment visa was unconstitutionally vague or arbitrary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --