EB-1 Extraordinary Ability USCIS Appeal Review – Journalist – OCT042024_05B2203

Date of Decision: October 4, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability

Petitioner Information

Profession: Journalist
Field: Journalism and Media Publishing
Nationality: Not specified in the document

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Withdrawn and remanded for further determination

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

The petitioner sought to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner satisfied two criteria. The matter was remanded for reconsideration and further evaluation of additional claims.

Criteria Met:

1. Published Material About the Petitioner:
   • The petitioner provided articles about her work, meeting the requirements for material in professional or major trade publications.
2. Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
   • Evidence of participation in judging the work of others was deemed sufficient.

Criteria Requiring Further Evaluation:

1. Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
   • The petitioner claimed two awards, but the Director did not fully evaluate the evidence submitted in response to the RFE.
2. Original Contributions of Major Significance:
   • Evidence included the launch of a digital magazine with international reach. The Director failed to assess the additional claims and evidence submitted in response to the RFE.
3. Performance in a Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
   • The petitioner claimed a critical role as editorial manager for a women’s magazine associated with a distinguished publication. The Director did not fully consider evidence of the magazine’s reputation or the petitioner’s impact.

Key Points from the Decision

Awards and Recognition:

• The petitioner’s awards were not fully evaluated, requiring remand for further analysis.

Original Contributions:

• The launch of a digital magazine with significant reach was noted, but the evidence of major field-wide significance was not thoroughly assessed.

Leadership and Critical Role:

• While the petitioner held a leadership role, evidence of the magazine’s independent reputation and the petitioner’s critical impact was not adequately considered.

Final Merits Determination:

• The AAO directed the Director to conduct a final merits determination, considering the totality of the evidence to evaluate whether the petitioner demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim.

Supporting Documentation

Published Material Evidence: Articles highlighting the petitioner’s work in professional or trade publications.
Judging Evidence: Records of participation in evaluating the work of others.
Award Evidence: Evidence of prizes or awards, requiring further evaluation.
Contribution Evidence: Launch of a digital magazine with international reach, requiring a detailed assessment of its significance.
Leadership Evidence: Documentation of a leading role in media publishing, requiring additional consideration.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for further analysis and decision-making.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met two regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Further evaluation is required to determine whether the petitioner’s evidence satisfies additional criteria and demonstrates extraordinary ability.

Download The Full Petition Review Here