Date of Decision: August 22, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Lawyer
Field: International Law
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner has served as a judge in a recognized capacity.
Criteria Not Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that his articles appeared in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner did not establish that his role as an “Additional Representative” met the plain language requirements of the criterion. Furthermore, new evidence presented did not establish eligibility at the time of filing.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his thesis was published in major media or professional publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in his field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated participation as a judge in a recognized capacity, fulfilling one criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his articles appeared in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner did not establish that his role as an “Additional Representative” met the plain language requirements of the criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Certificate of Appreciation (July 2007): Recognizes completion of an internship and volunteer work in the Protection of Civilians Section, Policy Development and Studies Branch.
- Organizational Chart: Provided for various offices but did not specify the hierarchy for interns.
- Security Council Report (October 2007): Does not credit contributors and did not establish the petitioner’s eligibility at the time of filing.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were both denied.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide new facts or legal authority showing that prior decisions were based on incorrect interpretations of law or policy. The petitioner also did not meet the evidentiary requirements for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification at the time of filing.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may pursue review of his new accomplishments by filing a subsequent petition.
