Date of Decision: December 18, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Consultant (Law and Religion)
Field: Business and Public Policy
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Withdrawn and remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to demonstrate eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) by satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner met the necessary criteria to establish eligibility for further review and remanded the case for a final merits determination.
Criteria Met
- Leading or Critical Role in Distinguished Organizations:
The petitioner provided evidence of serving in management-level positions in law and public affairs. His work included contributions to national public policies on religious freedom in Brazil, demonstrating his leadership in distinguished organizations. - Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
The petitioner provided evidence of his participation in peer review activities related to law and human rights. He submitted letters from research institutions confirming his role in reviewing scholarly articles. - Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner submitted a co-authored article published in Consulex Legal Review. The AAO found that the article met the scholarly standard, as it was written for legal professionals and contained references and citations.
Criteria Not Addressed in the Final Review
The AAO noted that the petitioner claimed up to six additional criteria. However, because the petitioner satisfied three criteria, the AAO did not evaluate the remaining claims.
Key Points from the Decision
- Field of Expertise Recognized as Business: The AAO determined that the petitioner’s work in law and religion, particularly in consulting and advisory services related to workplace diversity and religious freedom, falls within the business category under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
- Judging Evidence: The petitioner successfully demonstrated his role in peer reviewing scholarly articles.
- Publication Evidence: The petitioner provided proof that his co-authored article met the regulatory standard for scholarly work.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO remanded the case for a final merits determination. The Director was instructed to evaluate whether the petitioner demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and established himself as one of the small percentage at the top of his field.
Supporting Documentation
Leadership Evidence: Documentation of management roles in law and public affairs, including contributions to public policy.
Judging Evidence: Letters confirming participation in peer review for scholarly publications.
Publication Evidence: Co-authored article published in Consulex Legal Review with citations and references.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review.
Reasoning: The petitioner successfully met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The case was remanded for a final merits determination to assess whether the petitioner demonstrated extraordinary ability and sustained acclaim.
