Date of Decision: October 14, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Attorney Specializing in International Tax Law
Field: International Tax Law
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None specified in the document.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner’s membership in the [specific association] and his role as [specific role] for the [organization] did not meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that the membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Published Material: The Petitioner’s submissions, including court decisions and articles on online legal databases, did not qualify as published material about him in professional or major trade publications, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner’s defense of the Indian government’s position in tax matters, while impactful, did not establish original contributions of major significance in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner’s roles, including as [specific role] for the [organization], were not sufficiently documented to demonstrate leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner’s submissions did not meet the criterion for published material in professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions were significant but did not demonstrate the original contributions of major significance required by the criterion.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s memberships did not meet the criterion of requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner did not contest the finding that he did not meet this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner’s roles were not sufficiently documented to demonstrate leading or critical roles in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including recommendation letters, court decisions, and articles. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider was dismissed.
Reasoning: The evidence provided did not demonstrate that the Petitioner met the required evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The Petitioner did not show that his memberships required outstanding achievements or that the published material was about him. Additionally, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of original contributions of major significance or leading or critical roles in distinguished organizations.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of their contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit their qualifications.
