Date of Decision: August 23, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Entrepreneur
Field: Business and Corporate Innovation
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Withdrawn and remanded for further determination
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- The petitioner provided evidence of reviewing business proposals and serving as a judge at entrepreneurship competitions.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Authored articles published in journals and trade publications, discussing corporate strategy and entrepreneurship.
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- Articles from China Enterprise News, Xinmin Weekly, Southern Metropolis Daily, and other publications highlighted the petitioner’s corporate achievements and business ventures.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Material:
- The petitioner submitted evidence of media coverage from multiple prominent publications. While the Director initially discounted this evidence due to a lack of substantiated circulation data, the AAO determined that sufficient external documentation demonstrated the significance of the outlets.
Judging Activities:
- Evidence of the petitioner’s participation in evaluating entrepreneurship competitions and proposals was sufficient to meet this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner’s articles discussing entrepreneurship and corporate strategy were deemed significant contributions to the business field.
Director’s Errors:
- The Director failed to adequately consider evidence regarding the prominence of publications and the petitioner’s contributions as a judge and author.
- The AAO determined that the petitioner met at least three regulatory criteria, requiring a remand for a final merits determination under the Kazarian framework.
Remand Instructions:
- The Director must evaluate the totality of the evidence to determine whether the petitioner demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of business and corporate innovation.
Supporting Documentation
Judging Evidence: Records of participation in entrepreneurship competitions as a judge.
Authorship Evidence: Articles on corporate strategy and entrepreneurship in professional journals and trade publications.
Published Material Evidence: Media coverage from China Enterprise News, Southern Metropolis Daily, and other recognized outlets.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for further analysis and decision-making.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Director must now assess whether the petitioner demonstrates extraordinary ability and sustained acclaim in the field of business and entrepreneurship.
