EB-1 Extraordinary Ability USCIS Appeal Review – Researcher in Scholarly Publishing – OCT152024_01B2203

Date of Decision: October 15, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability

Petitioner Information

Profession: Researcher in Scholarly Publishing
Field: Academic Research and Publishing
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Appeal Outcome: Withdrawn and remanded for further determination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). Upon appeal, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner satisfied three criteria, requiring remand for a final merits determination.

Criteria Met:

1. Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
   • Evidence of published articles in reputable academic journals was sufficient to meet this criterion.
2. Performance in a Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
   • The petitioner held a critical role in a scholarly publishing organization, substantiated by letters and organizational records.
3. High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration:
   • Compensation data demonstrated that the petitioner earned a high salary relative to others in the field, supported by statistics from the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Criteria Not Fully Evaluated:

1. Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
   • The petitioner claimed several awards but did not sufficiently demonstrate their significance or recognition in the field. This claim will be reevaluated upon remand.
2. Published Material About the Petitioner:
   • Evidence of media coverage and articles was submitted but not fully assessed regarding their relevance and prominence.
3. Original Contributions of Major Significance in the Field:
   • Contributions to publishing standards were acknowledged but required further evaluation to determine their field-wide significance.

Key Points from the Decision

Authorship and Leadership Roles:

• The petitioner’s scholarly articles and leadership role were documented and deemed sufficient to meet their respective criteria.

Salary Evidence:

• The petitioner provided strong evidence of high earnings compared to industry standards, meeting the salary criterion.

Final Merits Determination:

• The AAO remanded the case for a final merits determination to evaluate the totality of the petitioner’s accomplishments and assess whether they demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Supporting Documentation

Authorship Evidence: Scholarly articles published in academic journals.
Leadership Evidence: Letters and documentation of a critical role in a distinguished organization.
Salary Evidence: Compensation data and industry benchmarks demonstrating significantly high earnings.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for further analysis and decision-making.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, further evaluation is needed to determine if the petitioner demonstrates extraordinary ability and sustained acclaim in academic research and publishing.

Download The Full Petition Review Here