Date of Decision: October 30, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Marketing Analyst
Field: Marketing and Business Consultancy
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Appeal Outcome: Withdrawn and remanded for further determination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). The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner satisfied one criterion but remanded the case due to procedural errors by the Director.
Criteria Met:
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
- The petitioner demonstrated his role as the founder and general manager of a marketing consultancy company, supported by evidence of its distinguished reputation in China.
Criteria Not Fully Evaluated:
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- Evidence included articles referencing the petitioner, but the Director did not provide a detailed analysis of whether these met the regulatory requirements.
- Judging the Work of Others:
- The petitioner provided evidence of judging activities, but the Director did not address whether this criterion was satisfied.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance in the Field:
- The petitioner claimed to have developed the theory of “value chain marketing,” but the Director did not evaluate the evidence of its impact or significance in the field.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner provided evidence of two books on marketing but did not receive a detailed analysis from the Director regarding their significance.
Key Points from the Decision
Director’s Procedural Errors:
- The AAO determined that the Director failed to provide a detailed analysis of the evidence for the four criteria the petitioner claimed to have met.
- The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to address the finding of willful misrepresentation due to the Director’s lack of specificity in identifying evidence of fraud.
Final Merits Determination:
- The AAO remanded the case for further evaluation of the evidence, including whether the petitioner demonstrated extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim.
Supporting Documentation
Leadership Evidence: Documentation of the petitioner’s critical role in a distinguished marketing consultancy company.
Published Material Evidence: Articles and references to the petitioner in marketing publications.
Contribution Evidence: Descriptions of the petitioner’s “value chain marketing” theory, requiring further evaluation of its field-wide significance.
Authorship Evidence: Books authored by the petitioner in the field of marketing.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for further analysis and decision-making.
Reasoning:
The petitioner demonstrated eligibility for one regulatory criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, procedural errors and insufficient analysis of evidence required the case to be remanded for further evaluation.
