EB-1 Extraordinary Ability USCIS Appeal Review – Legal Scholar from Brazil – SEP052019_01B2203

Date of Decision: SEPT. 5, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability

Petitioner Information

Profession: Legal Scholar
Field: Law
Nationality: Brazil

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Criteria Met:

1. Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards: The Petitioner’s receipt of an Honorable Mention from the I I in 2010 was recognized as meeting this criterion.

Criteria Not Met:

1. Membership in associations in the field requiring outstanding achievements: The evidence provided did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s membership required outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts.
2. Original contributions of major significance: The Petitioner’s book and his role in developing an electronic judicial process system were acknowledged but not found to demonstrate major significance in the field.
3. Leading or critical role: The evidence showed the Petitioner had a leading role within a specific committee but did not establish a leading role for the entire organization.

Key Points from the Decision

Awards and Prizes Won:

• The Honorable Mention from the I I in 2010 was acknowledged but not sufficient to meet additional criteria independently.

Published Materials About the Petitioner:

• Reference letters described the Petitioner’s book as a significant contribution but lacked detailed evidence of its impact on the field.

Original Contributions of Major Significance:

• The Petitioner’s contributions to the development of an electronic judicial process system in Brazil were noted but not found to meet the criterion without broader impact evidence.

Participation as a Judge:

• Not applicable in this case.

Membership in Associations:

• The Petitioner’s membership in the Special Committee of Informatics and Statistics was discussed but did not meet the evidentiary requirements.

Authorship of Scholarly Articles:

• The Petitioner’s book was considered but found insufficient for meeting the original contributions criterion.

Leading or Critical Role Performed:

• The Petitioner’s roles as vice president and chairman were acknowledged but not deemed leading or critical for the entire organization.

Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:

• Not applicable in this case.

Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:

• Not applicable in this case.

Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:

• Not applicable in this case.

Supporting Documentation

1. Honorable Mention Award Certificate: Documented the Petitioner’s receipt of an award in 2010.
2. Reference Letters: Provided by legal experts, describing the Petitioner’s contributions and roles.
3. Book Publication: Included details about the Petitioner’s book and its reception.
4. Development of Judicial Process System: Evidence of the Petitioner’s involvement in creating an electronic judicial process system.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The motion to reconsider was denied.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not establish that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, nor did he provide sufficient evidence to meet the required criteria.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting new evidence or exploring other visa classifications.

Download the Full Petition Review Here