Date of Decision: January 27, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Civil Engineer and Construction Manager
Field: Civil Engineering and Construction Management
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Motion Outcome: Motion to reopen and reconsider dismissed
Appeal Outcome: Director’s decision withdrawn; case remanded for new decision
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Claimed
- Membership in Associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii))
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi))
- Leading or Critical Role in Distinguished Organizations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii))
- High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix))
Director’s Analysis and Errors
- The Director dismissed the motion broadly, stating evidence “does not demonstrate” eligibility for criteria ii, vi, viii, and ix, without explaining deficiencies.
- The Director ambiguously referred to the motion as a “Motion to Reopen and/or Reconsider” but failed to apply the specific regulatory requirements to each.
- In response to an RFE, the petitioner had submitted a 14-page statement addressing all four claimed criteria, but the Director incorrectly determined that “no evidence” was submitted.
- The Director also did not address arguments made in the petitioner’s legal brief or evidence attached to the motion, depriving the petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to contest the decision.
Key Points from the Decision
- Failure to Analyze Evidence: Director failed to address evidence submitted in response to the RFE and on motion.
- Inadequate Reasoning: Decision lacked specific explanations required under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(i).
- Mischaracterization of Record: Director’s claim of “no evidence” contradicted the record, which included detailed responses.
- Remand Ordered: AAO withdrew the decision and remanded for a new adjudication, requiring a proper application of standards and explanation of deficiencies if denied again.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO did not make a final merits determination. The case was remanded for the Director to conduct a full review of the evidence and provide an adequately reasoned decision.
Supporting Documentation
- Membership Evidence: Documentation of association membership (not analyzed).
- Authorship Evidence: Evidence of scholarly works (not analyzed).
- Leadership Evidence: Claims of leading or critical role in organizations (not analyzed).
- Salary Evidence: Documentation of remuneration (partially discussed but inadequately evaluated).
- RFE Response: 14-page statement addressing all four criteria.
- Legal Brief: Supporting arguments submitted with motion.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denial withdrawn; case remanded.
Reasoning: Director failed to properly analyze evidence and provide adequate explanations, requiring a new decision.
