Date of Decision: June 22, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Teacher and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Education Researcher
Field: Education and Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None: The petitioner did not meet the criteria required for the EB1 classification.
Criteria Not Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner did not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance.
Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner did not establish being well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Beneficial to Waive Job Offer Requirement: The petitioner failed to show that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted various documents, including complaints to the Florida Bar regarding ineffective assistance by previous attorneys. These complaints were acknowledged, but the petitioner did not provide sufficient details about the agreements with former attorneys or show that their actions prejudiced the outcome of the case.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was denied.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not present new facts or evidence that would satisfy the requirements set forth in the Matter of Lozada and the Dhanasar framework. Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate that the former attorneys’ actions affected the case outcome or that the petitioner met the criteria for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps:
For future petitions or motions, the petitioner should ensure that all evidence and documentation are submitted correctly and comprehensively. Seeking advice from competent legal counsel to review and properly prepare the case might improve the chances of a favorable decision.
