Date of Decision: April 6, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Retail Business Consultant
Field: Retail Business
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish that he authored scholarly articles. This criterion was met as the evidence demonstrated the Petitioner’s authorship of articles published in professional journals related to retail business.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner provided evidence showing he played a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation. The letters of support and documentation established the Petitioner’s leading role in notable organizations within the retail business sector.
Criteria Not Met
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed original contributions of major significance in the field. However, the initial decision concluded that the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the significance and impact of these contributions. The reference letters praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked specific, detailed information on how these contributions were widely implemented or significantly influenced the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about him were in major trade or professional publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters and supporting documents lacked specific details on the impact and significance of his contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles in reputable professional journals, satisfying this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner performed a leading role for organizations with a distinguished reputation, satisfying this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Analysis of Director’s Decision on Motion
The Director initially concluded that the Petitioner met two of the requisite three criteria but dismissed the combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The Director did not include the requirements for a motion to reopen or provide an analysis of the new evidence submitted with the motion. The Petitioner asserted that the Director failed to consider this new evidence, which aimed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and for the entry of a new decision.
Reasoning: The Director did not fully explain the reasons for the decision on the Petitioner’s motion, nor did he provide an analysis of the new evidence submitted. The Petitioner was not given an opportunity to contest the decision, and a meaningful appellate review could not be conducted. The Director must consider the new evidence submitted with the motion to reopen and provide a detailed analysis for a new decision.
Next Steps: The Director will re-examine the evidence submitted to satisfy the criteria and make a new determination that takes into account the discussions and analyses provided.
