Date of Decision: January 23, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Footwear Development Manager
Field: Mechanical Engineering and Product Development (Sporting Goods)
Nationality: New Zealand
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Director’s decision withdrawn; case remanded for new decision
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
- Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)): Evidence included product innovations, engineering advances, and patents that significantly impacted the petitioner’s sporting goods business.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)): Authored scholarly works, including a conference paper presented at an international venue.
- Leading or Critical Role (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)): Established that the beneficiary held a critical role in a global sporting goods conglomerate of distinguished reputation.
Criteria Not Analyzed
- Published Material About the Beneficiary (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)) and
- High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)) were raised but not analyzed because the petitioner had already met three criteria.
Key Points from the Decision
- Director’s Narrow Analysis: The Director only discussed one conference presentation, ignoring other evidence such as patents and product innovations.
- Failure to Consider Totality: USCIS policy requires analysis of all probative evidence, even if it does not fit neatly into the evidentiary criteria.
- Overlooked Evidence: The Director disregarded highly probative evidence, including five U.S. patents and the beneficiary’s business contributions.
- Remand Ordered: AAO withdrew the decision and remanded for a new final merits determination that considers the full record.
Final Merits Determination
AAO did not make its own merits determination but remanded. The Director must now evaluate whether the beneficiary’s full record demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim sufficient to establish him as among the top in his field.
Supporting Documentation
- Contribution Evidence: Five U.S. patents, design innovations, and product development successes.
- Authorship Evidence: International conference paper and scholarly works.
- Leadership Evidence: Evidence of critical role in a distinguished sporting goods corporation.
- Additional Evidence: Salary and published material claims, not evaluated.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denial withdrawn; case remanded.
Reasoning: The Director failed to consider all highly probative evidence, including patents and product contributions, requiring a new merits determination.
