Date of Decision: November 2, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Professional
Field: Business
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Criterion 1: Published materials about the petitioner in ProPublica article
- Criterion 2: Evidence of past business relationship with a prominent figure
Criteria Not Met:
- Criterion 1: Major, internationally recognized award
- Criterion 2: Additional criteria as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) were not specifically mentioned as met
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The ProPublica article does not depict the Beneficiary as having sustained national or international acclaim or being at the very top of his field but provides corroborating evidence of his business relationship with a notable figure.
- Key quotes:
- “The article in ProPublica does not portray the Beneficiary as having sustained national or international acclaim in business or a level of expertise rendering him among the small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field.”
- “We conclude that this article, as well as other corroborating evidence in the record, is sufficient to show that the Beneficiary had a past business relationship with [the prominent figure].”
Original Contributions of Major Significance: Not applicable
Participation as a Judge: Not applicable
Membership in Associations: Not applicable
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Not applicable
Leading or Critical Role Performed: Not applicable
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not applicable
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
- ProPublica Article: Evidence of a business relationship with a prominent figure
- Summary: The article mentions various interactions and business attempts by the Beneficiary, none of which resulted in sustained success or acclaim.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Remanded for further review
Reasoning:
- The Director’s initial denial was based on the lack of an established working relationship, which was found to be an improper legal basis. The appeal provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate this relationship, thus overcoming the sole basis for denial.
- The case is remanded for the Director to consider all evidence and determine if the Beneficiary meets the criteria for extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulatory requirements.
Next Steps:
- The Director should review all evidence, including any new submissions, to determine if the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award or satisfies at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria.
- A final merits determination should be made to evaluate if the Beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
