Date of Decision: May 15, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Lawyer
Field: Legal Profession
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv):
The petitioner provided evidence that he has served as a judge of the work of others in his field.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii):
The petitioner claimed that his fellowship with the American Bar Foundation met this criterion. However, since he did not become a fellow until 2016, six years after the filing of his petition, this evidence could not be considered.
Leading or Critical Role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii):
The petitioner claimed that his role as a consultant during his internship with an office of the United Nations met this criterion. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that his role was leading or critical within the organization.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided evidence that he has served as a judge of the work of others in his field, which met one of the criteria.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s fellowship with the American Bar Foundation was not considered since it was obtained six years after the filing of his petition.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s role during his internship with the United Nations was not sufficiently demonstrated to be leading or critical.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner provided several pieces of evidence, including:
Evidence of serving as a judge of the work of others in his field.
Documentation regarding his fellowship with the American Bar Foundation.
Evidence related to his role during an internship with the United Nations.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider are denied.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not submit sufficient new evidence or demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy that would warrant reopening or reconsidering the decision. The evidence provided did not establish that the petitioner met the required number of criteria for EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification at the time of filing the petition.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider consulting with new legal counsel to explore any further options for appeal or other immigration benefits for which he may be eligible.
