Date of Decision: January 3, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Technology Entrepreneur
Field: Financial Technology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Withdrawn and remanded for new decision
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
- Prizes or Awards: The Director found the beneficiary satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
- Leading or Critical Role: The Director determined the beneficiary fulfilled the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
- Comparable Evidence for Scholarly Articles: The AAO accepted evidence of presentations at major trade shows as comparable to authorship of scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), consistent with USCIS Policy Manual guidance.
Criteria Not Met
- Membership: The Director found insufficient evidence to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
- Published Material About the Beneficiary: The Director found the evidence did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
- Display of Work: The Director determined the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) was not met.
Key Points from the Decision
- Improper Exclusion of Comparable Evidence: The Director erred by dismissing comparable evidence claims under the scholarly article criterion. The AAO clarified that comparable evidence is permissible where a criterion is not readily applicable to the beneficiary’s occupation.
- Venture Capital Recognition: The petitioner’s company, co-founded by the beneficiary, had received significant venture capital funding, underscoring the entrepreneurial impact.
- Remand for Final Merits: The AAO withdrew the denial and remanded for a full final merits determination to assess whether the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO did not issue a final merits determination. Instead, it remanded the case to the Director to evaluate the totality of evidence, including accomplishments, sustained acclaim, and recognition at the national or international level. The Director was instructed to consider both traditional criteria and other potentially relevant evidence consistent with USCIS policy.
Supporting Documentation
- Evidence of Prizes or Awards: Submitted and accepted.
- Evidence of Leading or Critical Role: Submitted and accepted.
- Presentations at Major Trade Shows: Accepted as comparable evidence for scholarly articles.
- Membership Evidence: Submitted but insufficient.
- Published Material Evidence: Submitted but insufficient.
- Display of Work Evidence: Submitted but insufficient.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Decision withdrawn; case remanded.
Reasoning: The petitioner demonstrated eligibility for at least three criteria, including through comparable evidence. A full final merits determination is required to assess sustained acclaim and whether the beneficiary is at the top of the field.
