Date of Decision: February 5, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Architect and Urban Designer
Field: Architecture and Urban Design
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Director’s decision withdrawn; case remanded for new decision
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
- Judging the Work of Others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv))
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi))
- High Salary or Remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix))
The petitioner’s tax returns and compensation data showed that her earnings were significantly higher than the average for architects and urban planners, satisfying this criterion on appeal.
Criteria Not Met (at Appeal Stage)
- Membership in Associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii))
- Display of Work (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii))
- Leading or Critical Role (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii))
- Commercial Success in the Performing Arts / Comparable Evidence (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x))
Key Points from the Decision
- Third Criterion Satisfied on Appeal: AAO determined the petitioner met the high salary criterion, overcoming the reason for denial.
- Threshold Met: With three criteria satisfied, petitioner now meets the regulatory requirement for further evaluation.
- Final Merits Reserved: AAO emphasized that satisfying three criteria alone does not establish eligibility; the Director must conduct a final merits determination.
- Remand Ordered: The case was remanded for the Director to evaluate whether the petitioner demonstrated sustained acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Final Merits Determination
Not conducted at this stage. The AAO remanded the case to the Director to perform a full merits analysis in light of the petitioner meeting at least three criteria.
Supporting Documentation
- Judging Evidence: Documentation of peer review or evaluation work.
- Authorship Evidence: Scholarly articles authored in architecture and urban design.
- High Salary Evidence: 2021 income tax returns and comparative compensation data.
- Other Criteria Evidence: Membership, display, leadership, and commercial success claims (not qualifying).
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denial withdrawn; case remanded.
Reasoning: Petitioner established three criteria, overcoming the original basis for denial. A final merits determination is required to assess sustained acclaim and top-tier standing.
