How does the Supreme Court’s elimination of Chevron deference affect USCIS’s ability to narrowly interpret the EB-1A regulatory framework, particularly at Step 1 of the Kazarian analysis? I am specifically interested in two areas: (1) whether, under a strict textual reading of the judging the work of others criterion in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), participation in code review where the beneficiary evaluates and approves the technical work of others in the same field should qualify without USCIS applying extra regulatory limitations, and (2) whether USCIS can continue using its historically restrictive approach to comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) now that courts are no longer required to defer to agency interpretations. I understand that even if these issues favor the petitioner at Step 1 they may not change the outcome of the final merits determination under Step 2, and I am trying to determine how a post Chevron, strictly textual approach might influence Step 1 outcomes for petitioners whose achievements do not align neatly with the ten listed criteria.

What has Chevron got to do with EB-1A adjudication? The Kazarian step 1 step 2 stuff is hokey. It is ultimately a subjective evaluation that will remain under the executive.

Wouldn't this fall under Auer deference (agency's interpretation of its own regulation)?

There is some uncertainty about whether Auer deference survives after Loper Bright.

But this isn't an ambiguous area of law. The statute is pretty clear in the text here - that the EB1-A criteria are necessary but not sufficient. That's what the step1 (necessary) and step2 (sufficient) boil down to. You can litigate on what qualifies as necessary if the agency is doing something weird, but ultimately it is a subjective evaluation. The court isn't going to adjudicate on the merits, USCIS is.

This is a very weak letter. Oracle is using the mark in commerce, and the 2019 specimen is presumed valid unless affirmatively disproven. The fact that Oracle doesn’t charge licensing fees for use of the name is irrelevant. Calling something JavaScript ‘JavaScript’ is nominative use, and any attempt by Oracle to enforce against such truthful descriptive use would fail under nominative fair use.

Make sure you're lean and muscular before you lose it all.

This is of the classical genre of HN cynicism framed as advice that if you were to follow you're pretty much guaranteed to never go anywhere in life.

nah I have been in the venture scene in nyc for a while, have seen the same song and dance play out over and over

and before that was TextMate.

You can ask for 3 years again on the renewal and sometimes USCIS make the mistake of giving it to you even though they are not allowed (unless it's a new engagement) according to the statutory text

The evidentiary standard is preponderance of evidence, i.e. there is a greater than 50% chance what is claimed clears the statutory bar.

RFE's and rejections don't cause problems by themselves. A denial can cause problems if the reason for denial is fraud or misrepresentation.

The clue is "other remuneration". USCIS will accept stock based compensation for founders under comparable evidence if you have raised money, i.e. your equity has a fair market value set by a professional investor in an arms-length transaction. Your total compensation will still need to objectively high compared to peers in your geographical area (supported by data).

A knighthood is not a hereditary title.

Knighthoods can be hereditary titles. A Baronet is "Sir" and it passes through the eldest son of a Baronet. It is one of the lowest ranks in the Peerage.

Is it a royal title? Or would the pedant argue that it's not a title bestowed by royals (i.e. a royal title)?

My statement included "royal titles".

It’s not true. There are two steps to EB-1A: the statutory criteria, functionally identical to the O-1, and a final merits determination where the examiner evaluates the totality of evidence to determine if you belong to the small percentage at the top of your field. This is a far higher bar than O-1. Additionally, each petition before USCIS is evaluated independently, except for subsequent O-1 petitions with substantially similar facts. In such cases, USCIS policy and the APA’s prohibition on arbitrary and capricious action generally require approval absent extraordinary circumstances.