EB-1 Extraordinary Ability USCIS Appeal Review – Attorney – JUL182022_01B2203

Date of Decision: July 18, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability

Petitioner Information

Profession: Attorney
Field: International Dispute Resolution
Nationality: [Nationality not specified in the provided document]

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Criteria Met:

1. Criterion: Authorship of Scholarly Articles
   Description: The petitioner has authored articles on comparative arbitration systems and international investment, published in professional legal journals.
2. Criterion: Original Contributions of Major Significance
   Description: The petitioner participated in drafting an arbitration guide for handling international disputes for Chinese attorneys and was appointed as an arbitrator by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Committee (CIETAC).

Criteria Not Met:

1. Criterion: Published Materials About the Petitioner
   Description: Although the petitioner contributed to professional book chapters in China, there was no indication that these contributions were recognized at a level that met the criteria.
2. Criterion: Participation as a Judge
   Description: There is no evidence the petitioner acted as a judge in a capacity that fulfills the USCIS criteria.

Key Points from the Decision

Awards and Prizes Won:

• The petitioner did not submit evidence of receiving any major, internationally recognized awards.

Published Materials About the Petitioner:

• The petitioner contributed to professional book chapters but did not indicate that these contributions were widely recognized.

Original Contributions of Major Significance:

• The petitioner’s work in drafting an arbitration guide and being appointed as an arbitrator demonstrates significant contributions to the field of international dispute resolution.

Participation as a Judge:

• The petitioner’s appointment as an arbitrator by CIETAC was recognized but not sufficient to fulfill the criteria of judging the work of others in a qualifying capacity.

Membership in Associations:

• No evidence was provided to demonstrate membership in associations that require outstanding achievements as a condition of membership.

Authorship of Scholarly Articles:

• The petitioner has authored articles published in professional legal journals.

Leading or Critical Role Performed:

• Evidence was not provided to demonstrate the petitioner’s leading or critical role in distinguished organizations.

Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:

• Not applicable as the petitioner’s field is law.

Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:

• The petitioner did not provide evidence of high salary or remuneration compared to others in the field.

Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:

• Not applicable as the petitioner’s field is law.

Supporting Documentation

1. Arbitration Guide: A guide for handling international disputes for Chinese attorneys drafted by the petitioner.
2. Appointment Letter: Document confirming the petitioner’s appointment as an arbitrator by CIETAC.
3. Published Articles: Copies of articles authored by the petitioner on comparative arbitration systems and international investment.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The decision was remanded for further review.
Reasoning: The Director did not properly evaluate all the evidence provided, particularly the petitioner’s work in international dispute resolution, which should be considered within the field of business.
Next Steps: The Director is to re-evaluate the evidence to determine if the petitioner meets the criteria for extraordinary ability classification and, if so, assess if the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim.

Download the Full Petition Review Here

---

Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 19917541

JUL182022_01B2203.pdf