Date of Decision: February 5, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Lawyer and Legal Entrepreneur
Field: Law and Legal Services
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Claimed
- Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
- Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
- Published material about the petitioner
- Original contributions of major significance
- Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
- High salary or remuneration
Criteria Not Met
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i))
Petitioner admitted that her recognitions were not national or international in scope; therefore, they did not qualify. - Membership in Associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii))
Membership in bar associations (including the American Bar Association and local bars) did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts; they were open to general members. - Published Material About the Petitioner (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii))
Articles provided were in foreign languages without certified translations, and petitioner did not prove they were published in major trade or professional media. - Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v))
Roles in the UN Population Fund, Human Rights Academy, and Legal Mentor Network were noted, but evidence did not show that her work had field-wide impact or influence. - Leading or Critical Role (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii))
Petitioner claimed pivotal roles in several organizations but failed to show corroborating evidence that she made contributions of significant importance or that the organizations had distinguished reputations. - High Salary or Remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix))
Petitioner admitted insufficient documentation. No additional evidence beyond the appeal brief was submitted.
Key Points from the Decision
- Acknowledgment of Weak Evidence: Petitioner admitted that her awards were not nationally or internationally recognized and that she lacked corroboration for salary claims.
- Memberships Insufficient: Bar associations did not require extraordinary achievements.
- Translation Deficiencies: Articles lacked certified translations, preventing their use as valid evidence.
- Original Contributions Unproven: Mentorship and advocacy roles were notable but not demonstrated as contributions of major significance to the legal field.
- Critical Role Claims Weak: Petitioner did not provide evidence of employer reputation or the significance of her contributions.
- Burden of Proof Not Met: Assertions in briefs without documentation were insufficient.
Final Merits Determination
AAO adopted and affirmed the Director’s decision, finding petitioner did not meet at least three regulatory criteria. She also failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or that she belongs to the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Supporting Documentation
- Awards Evidence: Recognitions submitted, but not national/international.
- Membership Evidence: Bar association membership records (not qualifying).
- Published Material Evidence: Articles and URLs without certified translations (not qualifying).
- Contribution Evidence: Mentorship and advocacy roles with UN and human rights groups (not qualifying).
- Leadership Evidence: Employer role documentation without proof of distinguished reputation (not qualifying).
- Salary Evidence: Incomplete and uncorroborated records (not qualifying).
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: Petitioner did not establish at least three criteria, and total evidence failed to show extraordinary ability or sustained acclaim in the legal field.
