Date of Decision: December 11, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Executive
Field: Business
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
[Not specified in the document]
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirements for classification by documenting his receipt of a major internationally recognized award or submitting evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to prove that he had won a major internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
There were discrepancies in the information provided by the Petitioner regarding his book publications and employment history.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Director did not provide a clear explanation as to why the Petitioner’s contributions were not considered significant.
Participation as a Judge:
The Director did not address whether the Petitioner had participated as a judge in his field.
Membership in Associations:
There was no discussion about the Petitioner’s membership in professional associations.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Director questioned the authenticity and significance of the scholarly articles authored by the Petitioner.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Director claimed that the Petitioner misrepresented his roles and contributions in his field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner provided information regarding his salary from a former Chinese employer, which was scrutinized by the Director.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Personal Statement:
- A 29-page personal statement addressing the issues raised by the Director.
- Additional Evidence:
- Evidence intended to rebut the Director’s determination of misrepresentation.
- Legal briefs from former counsel.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision has been withdrawn, and the matter is remanded for further consideration.
Reasoning:
The Director failed to properly consider the evidence and arguments submitted by the Petitioner in response to the Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID). The decision lacked a detailed analysis of the rebuttal arguments and did not explain why the evidence was insufficient to overcome the derogatory information. This resulted in an insufficient basis for the finding of willful misrepresentation.
Next Steps:
- The Director must reconsider the evidence submitted in response to the NOID and the arguments presented in the appeal.
- The Director should provide a detailed explanation if the decision will be based on any derogatory information not previously disclosed to the Petitioner.
- The Petitioner should be given an opportunity to respond to any new derogatory information.
