Date of Decision: DEC. 14, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Public Prosecutor and Specialist in Institutional Policy and Technology Innovation
Field: Legal and Technological Innovation
Nationality: [Nationality Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner served as a judge for various legal and technological innovation competitions.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored several scholarly articles in the field of law and technology innovation.
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner held a leading role in institutional policy and technology innovation within a distinguished legal institution.
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards and Prizes Won: The evidence submitted for awards and prizes did not demonstrate major, internationally recognized achievements.
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: Insufficient evidence provided to show widespread recognition through published materials.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The documentation did not convincingly establish that the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance to the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Director’s decision noted that the awards presented did not meet the high standard required for extraordinary ability classification. However, this point was not sufficiently addressed in the appeal analysis.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
While there were materials published about the petitioner, they were not adequately evaluated for their impact and significance in the final merits determination.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed several contributions to the field, but the Director did not fully assess the provided evidence in the context of its collective impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner’s role in judging various competitions was acknowledged, satisfying one of the regulatory criteria.
Membership in Associations:
There was no significant discussion about the petitioner’s membership in associations, and this criterion was not claimed in the appeal.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The articles authored by the petitioner were recognized as meeting one of the required criteria, but their impact on the field was not fully considered in the final decision.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s leading role in a distinguished institution was acknowledged, but the broader significance of this role was not adequately evaluated.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not addressed in the appeal.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Judging Competitions: Documents detailing the petitioner’s participation as a judge in various competitions.
- Scholarly Articles: Copies of articles authored by the petitioner, along with citations and references.
- Institutional Role: Documentation of the petitioner’s role and contributions within a distinguished legal institution.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision has been withdrawn, and the case has been remanded for a new decision.
Reasoning:
The Director’s initial decision was based on an incomplete review of the record. The appeal highlighted that the evidence was not fully considered in the final merits analysis. The petitioner demonstrated eligibility under multiple criteria, but the totality of evidence was not adequately assessed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps:
The Director is instructed to re-evaluate the petitioner’s case, considering all submitted evidence, and to provide a detailed final merits analysis. The new decision should address all claimed criteria and any additional relevant evidence.
