Date of Decision: OCT. 7, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Attorney
Field: Software Development Entrepreneur
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the Beneficiary participated as a judge of the work of others, which is recognized as one of the qualifying criteria.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner provided evidence of the Beneficiary authoring scholarly articles, fulfilling another required criterion.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments:
The Beneficiary’s role as chairman and CEO of his company, as well as his position as board chairman of its subsidiary companies, was accepted as evidence of a leading or critical role.
Criteria Not Met
The review did not explicitly list the criteria that were not met in the provided document.
Key Points from the Decision
Leading or Critical Role Performed
The Director initially concluded that the Beneficiary did not fulfill this criterion because the organizations were not considered to have distinguished reputations. However, upon appeal, it was determined that the Director did not fully consider the evidence presented. Published articles confirmed that the Beneficiary’s company had a distinguished reputation nationally.
Key Quotes:
“This evidence, uncontradicted in the record, is sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that [the company] has a distinguished reputation.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner
The decision acknowledged published articles referring to the Beneficiary’s company, supporting its national recognition.
Key Quotes:
“Published articles in the record refer to [the company] and indicate that one of its flagship products has a market share.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance
No specific findings were provided in the document regarding original contributions of major significance.
Participation as a Judge
As mentioned, the Beneficiary’s participation as a judge of others’ work was recognized as meeting the criteria.
Membership in Associations
There was no mention of the Beneficiary’s membership in associations that require outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The Beneficiary authored scholarly articles, which contributed to fulfilling the criteria.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
No mention of artistic exhibitions or showcases was provided in the document.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
The document did not detail any evidence related to high salary or remuneration.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts
There was no reference to commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
- Published Articles: Articles indicating the national reputation and market share of the Beneficiary’s company.
- Professional Roles: Documentation of the Beneficiary’s leadership roles within his company and its subsidiaries.
- Scholarly Articles: Evidence of the Beneficiary’s authorship of scholarly articles.
- Judging Work: Proof of the Beneficiary’s participation as a judge in relevant fields.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Remanded
Reasoning: The Director’s decision was withdrawn due to an incomplete assessment of the Beneficiary’s evidence regarding the distinguished reputation of the organizations he led. The matter was remanded for a new decision.
Next Steps: The case will undergo a final merits determination by the Director to weigh the totality of the evidence and assess the Beneficiary’s extraordinary ability in his field.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 22395252
Document: OCT072022_01B2203
