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: Autism Spectrum Disorder Education
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None of the criteria were explicitly stated as met in the decision.
Criteria Not Met:
Second Prong of Dhanasar Framework:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that she is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Third Prong of Dhanasar Framework:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement and thus the labor certification requirement.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No awards or prizes were mentioned as part of the petitioner’s accomplishments.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
No specific published materials were referenced in the decision.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed her first research article was not considered because it was submitted after the initial filing date. This point was brought up to highlight the ineffective assistance of her counsel, but it did not change the outcome.
Participation as a Judge:
There were no references to the petitioner’s participation as a judge in the decision.
Membership in Associations:
No memberships in associations were discussed.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner’s research article was mentioned but was not considered in the initial filing due to its late submission.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that her previous counsels’ actions prejudiced the outcome, even if they were claimed to be ineffective.
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 provided several pieces of evidence, including:
A brief stating new facts to establish eligibility.
Evidence of ineffective assistance from previous attorneys.
An explanation of the steps to file a complaint with the Florida Bar and correspondence related to this complaint.
Letters indicating the complaints were forwarded to the Florida Bar’s branch office for consideration.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The motion to reopen is denied.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework and Lozada. The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not include a detailed description of agreements with the former attorneys, and there was no evidence that former counsels’ actions prejudiced the outcome of the proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the benefit sought.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider consulting with new legal counsel to explore any further options for appeal or other immigration benefits for which she may be eligible.
