Date of Decision: NOV. 21, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Human Rights and Political Activist
Field: Political Advisory and Human Rights
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The Director acknowledged that there has been extensive major media coverage about the Petitioner and his work in activism.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Director found that the Petitioner authored several op-eds and was the focus of an interview published by the Journal of International Affairs. However, the remand instructs the Director to reassess whether these articles qualify as scholarly.
Criteria Not Met:
Receipt of Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
The Director determined that the evidence provided did not meet the plain language requirements of this criterion without further explanation or analysis.
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
Similarly, the Director simply stated that the evidence did not meet the criterion’s plain language requirements without detailed analysis.
Original Contributions of Major Significance in the Field:
The Director imposed additional requirements beyond those specified in the regulations, assessing the evidence with the final merits determination standard instead of the initial criteria standard.
Leading or Critical Role for Organizations with a Distinguished Reputation:
The Director mischaracterized the Petitioner’s political protest campaign as “a project by the country’s government,” which was unsupported by the record.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: The Director did not adequately address or analyze the evidence related to the receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner provided extensive major media coverage about his work in activism.
- Key quotes or references: “The record supports that there has been extensive major media coverage about the Petitioner and his work in activism.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The Director incorrectly applied the final merits determination standard to this criterion.
- Key quotes or references: “The documentation provided fails to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s achievements are reflective of a career of acclaimed work in the field.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The Director did not provide a detailed explanation for why the evidence did not meet the plain language requirements of this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not contest the Director’s findings regarding this criterion on appeal, and it is considered abandoned.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: The Director needs to reassess whether the Petitioner’s op-eds and interview qualify as scholarly articles.
- Key quotes or references: “The record establishes that the Petitioner’s op-eds were published in major media, but it is not apparent that these articles were scholarly in nature.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: The Director mischaracterized the Petitioner’s campaign and imposed additional requirements beyond those in the regulations.
Supporting Documentation
- Evidence of published materials about the Petitioner in major media.
- Evidence of authorship of several op-eds and an interview in the Journal of International Affairs.
- Evidence related to participation as a judge and receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards.
- Evidence of original contributions and leading roles in distinguished organizations.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision is withdrawn, and the case is remanded for a new decision.
Reasoning: The Director did not adequately explain the reasons for denying the petition and imposed additional requirements beyond those in the regulations.
Next Steps: The Director should reexamine the evidence provided, issue a new decision fully evaluating the criteria, and possibly request additional evidence.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
Footer: Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 22645544
Document: NOV212022_02B2203.pdf
