Date of Decision: May 5, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Public Prosecutor and Law Professor
Field: Criminal, Constitutional, and Environmental Law
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated his role as a judge of the work of others in his field, which was recognized by the Texas Service Center.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards
The Director concluded that the awards provided by the Petitioner were local or regional in nature, not specific to his field, and appeared to be given as gratitude for his service rather than for extraordinary ability.
Memberships in Associations that Require Outstanding Achievements
The Director found that the Petitioner did not submit adequate evidence showing that the associations conferred membership based on outstanding achievements.
Published Material in Professional or Major Media
The Director noted that the Petitioner did not provide circulation statistics to establish that the published materials appeared in major media, despite including numerous articles.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
Although the Petitioner submitted evidence of authoring a book and several articles, the Director did not find sufficient proof of publication in major media or evidence of the intended audience.
Leading or Critical Role for Organizations with a Distinguished Reputation
The Director’s analysis lacked references to specific evidence demonstrating the Petitioner’s leading or critical role in distinguished organizations.
High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration
The Director deemed the evidence provided regarding the Petitioner’s salary as unreliable, despite submissions of tax returns and comparative salary data.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of Findings: The Director did not give adequate analysis of the awards and overlooked detailed supporting evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of Findings: The evidence showed ranking of some publications, but the Director did not consider this in determining whether the articles were in major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of Findings: Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of Findings: Criterion met as recognized by the Texas Service Center.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of Findings: The Director failed to address specific evidence submitted, leading to a conclusion that membership requirements were not met.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of Findings: The Director’s brief analysis did not address the detailed evidence of scholarly articles provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of Findings: The analysis was insufficient, lacking specific references to the evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of Findings: The Director dismissed the evidence as unreliable without proper consideration of its context.
Supporting Documentation
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards: Various awards and letters from senior officials.
Memberships in associations: Documentation and letters explaining the membership criteria.
Published material: Over 40 articles and information from Similar Web showing publication rankings.
Authorship of scholarly articles: Evidence of authored book and several articles, along with intended audience details.
High salary: Tax returns and comparative salary data.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Remanded
Reasoning:
The Director’s decision lacked detailed analysis and did not adequately address the evidence provided.
The case requires re-examination of all submitted evidence with specific attention to the criteria not initially recognized.
Next Steps:
The Texas Service Center should conduct a thorough re-evaluation of the Petitioner’s evidence.
Ensure all criteria are considered with detailed analysis and proper documentation references.
This blog post provides a comprehensive overview of the USCIS appeal review decision for an EB1 Extraordinary Ability case, following the specified structure and including detailed information from the provided document.
