Date of Decision: January 10, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Executive and Entrepreneur
Field: Strategic Management, Business Development, and Entrepreneurship
Nationality: Brazilian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members: The Petitioner claimed eligibility based on membership in the I School Alumni of Brazil and the I. The Director’s decision did not address the initial evidence provided in support of this criterion.
- Published material about the individual and their work: The Petitioner submitted several articles from Brazilian publications discussing him and his work. The Director’s analysis was deemed incomplete as it did not review all submitted evidence.
- Participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field: The Petitioner judged a Global Student Entrepreneurs Award competition held by Entrepreneurs Organization in Brazil. The Director did not fully consider the evidence for this criterion.
- Original contributions of major significance: The Director’s decision lacked a detailed analysis of the evidence submitted, which included letters supporting the Petitioner’s contributions.
- Leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations: The Petitioner’s roles as President of I and Managing Director for I were not adequately acknowledged in the initial decision.
- High salary or other significantly high remuneration: The Petitioner claimed to meet this criterion, but the Director’s review was brief and did not consider all submitted evidence.
Criteria Not Met:
None specified as unmet, but further review was required for several criteria.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Not applicable, as no major, internationally recognized award was claimed.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Several articles from Brazilian publications discuss the Petitioner’s work. The Director’s decision referenced only two articles without reviewing all provided evidence.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The Director’s decision lacked a detailed analysis of the evidence supporting the Petitioner’s significant contributions to the business field.
Participation as a Judge:
- The Petitioner participated as a judge in a Global Student Entrepreneurs Award competition, but the Director did not fully consider this evidence.
Membership in Associations:
- The Petitioner claimed eligibility based on membership in prestigious associations, but the Director did not address the initial evidence supporting this claim.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
- Not mentioned in the decision.
Leading or critical role performed:
- The Petitioner’s roles as President of I and Managing Director for I were not adequately acknowledged.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- The Petitioner claimed to meet this criterion, but the Director’s review did not consider all evidence.
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from colleagues and industry experts: Supporting the Petitioner’s extraordinary ability.
- Articles from Brazilian publications: Highlighting the Petitioner’s work and achievements.
- Membership certificates and explanations: Detailing the requirements for membership in prestigious associations.
- Documentation of judging activities: Providing evidence of the Petitioner’s role in evaluating the work of others.
- Evidence of high salary: Comparisons to salaries in the same field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Decision withdrawn, remanded for further review
Reasoning: The Director’s decision was found to be conclusory and did not fully address the evidence provided by the Petitioner. The case has been remanded for a comprehensive re-evaluation of all submitted evidence.
Next Steps:
- Re-examination of evidence: The Director should re-evaluate all the evidence submitted by the Petitioner.
- Detailed analysis: The new decision should include a thorough analysis of each criterion claimed by the Petitioner.
- Opportunity to contest: The Petitioner should be given a fair opportunity to contest any adverse findings in the new decision.
This blog post outlines the case details and the reasons for the appeal, highlighting the importance of thorough evidence review in immigration petitions.
