Date of Decision: January 30, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Paralegal
Field: Law and Legal Services
Nationality: Kazakhstan
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Director’s decision withdrawn; case remanded for new decision
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Waived on Appeal
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)): Submitted certificates of appreciation and volunteer recognitions were not considered awards or prizes. Petitioner did not contest this on appeal.
- Published Material About the Petitioner (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)): Submitted evidence included a radio station appearance screenshot without transcript or proof of relevance to legal field. Petitioner waived this issue on appeal.
Criteria Not Analyzed by Director
- Membership in Associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii))
- Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v))
- Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii))
- High Salary or Remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix))
The Director denied the petition on the basis that “the practice of law” was not within the EB-1 classification fields of science, arts, education, business, or athletics.
AAO’s Findings
- Field Classification Error: AAO found that the practice of law falls within “science or art” or alternatively “business” under the statute. Thus, legal professionals may qualify for EB-1 extraordinary ability.
- Remand Required: Since the Director failed to analyze the four claimed criteria, the case was remanded for full evaluation.
Key Points from the Decision
- Improper Denial Basis: Director incorrectly determined that law was outside EB-1 coverage.
- Unaddressed Evidence: Memberships, contributions, leadership role, and salary were never analyzed.
- Corrective Action: AAO ordered a remand to properly consider whether the petitioner met at least three criteria.
Final Merits Determination
AAO did not conduct a merits review. The case was remanded for the Director to assess whether the petitioner satisfies at least three criteria and whether her achievements demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Supporting Documentation
- Award Evidence: Volunteer and appreciation certificates (waived).
- Published Material Evidence: Radio station appearance screenshot (waived).
- Membership Evidence: Claimed professional association memberships (not analyzed).
- Contribution Evidence: Alleged original contributions in legal practice (not analyzed).
- Leadership Evidence: Claims of critical role in law firm (not analyzed).
- Salary Evidence: Records of remuneration (not analyzed).
Conclusion
Final Determination: Director’s denial withdrawn; case remanded.
Reasoning: Director erred in excluding law as a qualifying EB-1 field and failed to analyze four claimed criteria. A new decision is required to assess eligibility.
Download The Full Petition Review Here
