Date of Decision: November 22, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Tax Specialist
Field: Tax Law and Consultancy
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Appeal Outcome: Withdrawn and remanded for further determination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 demonstrate eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) by satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner met three criteria, and the Director’s decision was withdrawn with the case remanded for further evaluation.
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- The petitioner submitted evidence of serving as an instructor for his employer, where he evaluated and rated students’ coursework in the field of tax law. Supporting letters from his employer confirmed his judging activities, meeting the requirements of this criterion.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner provided evidence of published articles in tax law, including work for a major Brazilian newspaper described as “widely respected for its coverage of national and international news.” This documentation demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles in professional and major media.
- Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
- The petitioner held a critical role at a multinational accounting firm and the largest electricity provider in Latin America, contributing significantly to their operations and expertise in tax law.
Key Points from the Decision
Judging and Instructional Roles:
- Evidence demonstrated the petitioner’s role in evaluating work within his field, fulfilling the requirements of the judging criterion.
Published Work Credibility:
- The petitioner’s articles were published in reputable platforms, including a leading Latin American newspaper, with corroborating evidence from a credible source (Britannica.com).
Critical Role Evidence:
- The petitioner’s contributions to globally recognized organizations were supported by documentation and employer letters.
Final Merits Determination:
- The AAO remanded the case to the Director for a comprehensive final merits determination, focusing on whether the petitioner’s achievements demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and position him among the very top in his field.
Supporting Documentation
Judging Evidence: Letters confirming the petitioner’s role as an instructor and evaluator.
Authorship Evidence: Published scholarly articles in major media outlets.
Role Evidence: Documentation of critical roles at distinguished organizations.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for further evaluation.
Reasoning:
The petitioner satisfied three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Director must now conduct a final merits determination to assess sustained acclaim and recognition.
