Five hold that it is not. See, e.g., Dina, 7 93 F.2d 47 6 ("The USIA's statutory authorization contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(e) is entirely bereft of any guiding principles by which the USIA's action may subsequently be judged . . . Given the fact that foreign policy concerns are integrally involved in waiver decisions, agency discretion in this area should be broad."); Slyper, 827 F.2d at 823 ("The statute contains no standard or criterion upon which the Director is to base a decision to make or withhold a favorable recommendation. This broad delegation of discretionary authority is 'clear and convincing evidence' of congressional intent to restrict judicial review in cases such as those we now face."); Singh, 867 F.2d at 1039 ("[B]y virtue of the statutory language, the statutory structure, the legislative history, and the nature of the USIA's actions under § 1182(e), Congress has provided 'no meaningful standard' for reviewing the USIA's action, and has 'committed' the USIA's waiver recommendation function' to that agency's discretion.")