当前在线人数346
移民专栏首页 -> 北美联合律师专栏 -> 文章
好消息!本所上诉AAO 推翻杀手移民官判决 EB1A最终批准
作者:北美联合律师     发文时间: 2014年06月20日 04:57:32
客户感言:

“在收到AAO通知的当下,我非常的兴奋与感动! 在这之前,我几乎要放弃并打算回国
了。与移民局打的这场艰辛漫长的战役中,感谢有你们所付出的努力与对我案件的信心
。每当我感到挫折沮丧时,你们团队总是回信鼓励我。我们之间的合作非常愉快,办理
的效率非常好。我一定会推荐给其他朋友。我衷心地至上我的感謝。”


北美联合律师事务所於6/12/14 收到来自AAO的上诉批准通知,推翻了XM 100的拒绝判决
,批准了本所客户的EB-1A申请。

AAO 上诉批准通知: http://blog.wegreened.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Appeal-Approval.pdf

於2013年四月我们用加急方式递交了一份从事稀土化学研究的无机化学家的EB1A申请。
该客户致力於研究改善有毒废弃物质,并开发出了再生能源利用的创新方法。客户发表
了23篇学术论文并拥有高达240次的引用。申请书中我们缴交了10份专家推荐信,强调
该客户的背景条件丶杰出的成就与研究重要性,满足EB-1A要求中的三项资格。在被
XM 100移民官审理後收到了RFE补件通知。北美联合律师事务所在短短一个月内针对RFE
的各项内容加以还击,没想到最终还是被XM 100拒绝了。


北美联合律师事务所在五月中收到了XM 100发出的拒绝通知後,不服之余,笃信客户的
背景与条件理应符合杰出人才EB-1A的条件,点出XM 100对於申请书中只字判读有误,
於是开始马不停蹄地准备上诉,於五月底递交了上诉书。於上诉书中我们对於移民官
XM 100不合理的解释重新整理,指出移民官对於独立与非独立推荐人的判读错误,搭配
多数独立专家的推荐支持,重新论证了移民局的两阶段审查标准,策略性地以统计资料
数据显示出客户的顶尖条件,并缴交充足的客观证据说明该客户研究重要性与实际应用
面,且同时大量引用AAO前例判决佐证。


没想到过程中一波三折。收到上诉书的移民官理应在要45天内完成上诉初审,若其决
定维持原判决,则需转交给AAO进行終审。到了AAO後处理时间为六个月。


这一等竟然就等了将近八个月还迟迟没有消息。在与移民局电话沟通後发现原审理的
移民官在45天後竟没有把上诉案转交至AAO。对於移民局如此的行政疏失,北美联合律
师事务所立即递交了一份AAO加急处理的要求,要求核准之後此上诉案即刻进行受理,
不久之後判决结果出炉: AAO支持了我们的上诉。北美联合律师事务所又再次打了场漂
亮的胜仗,成功地帮這位客户扳倒移民局的判决,使其I-140顺利获批。


这份好消息之振奋之处在於移民官XM 100对於EB-1A条件偏向於严苛审理的裁量特性,招
来了其"殺手移民官"與”大刀”的称号,不少条件满足的申请者最终也都成了其"刀下
亡魂",许多客户亦闻之色变。其实,北美联合律师事务所再次提醒申请人,即使在法
律的大框架下,由於每位移民官的裁量标准不同,判决的结果有时也会因人而异。若不
幸收到RFE补件通知甚或拒绝通知书後也不要轻言放弃,只要仔细阅读判决书,透过有
效的策略见招拆招,补件至移民局或是上诉到AAO,还是有机会化险为夷。

判决原文如下:

AAO 上诉批准通知: http://blog.wegreened.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Appeal-Approval.pdf

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Office of Administrative Appeals
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090
Washington, DC 20529-2090

U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services

DATE: JUN 1 0 2014
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE:
SRC 13 130 52276

lN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:

PETITION: lmmigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary
Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

VICTORIA CHEN
CHEN IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES
2723 S. STATE STREET, SUlTE 150
ANN ARBOR, Ml 48104

INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO)
in your case. This is a nonprecedent decision. The AAO does not announce
new constructions of law nor establish agency policy through non-precedent
decisions.

Thank you,
Ron Rosenberg

Chief, Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov

NON-PRECEDENT DECISION
Page 2

DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based
immigrant visa petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals
Office on appeal. The appeal will be sustained.

The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in
the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not met the
requisite criteria for classification as an alien extraordinary ability.

On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. The
petitioner asserts that he meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §
204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v), and (vi). For the reasons discussed below, we find
that the petitioner meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability.

I. Law

Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that:

(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to
qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following
subparagraphs (A) through (C):

(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in
this subparagraph if --

(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education,
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the
field through extensive documentation,

(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area
of extraordinary ability, and

(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit
prospectively the United States.

U.S. Citizenship and lmmigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress
intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas
as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 10151 Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (
1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary
ability" refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h
)(2).

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate
his or her sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements
in the field. Such acclaim and achievements must be

NON-PRECEDENT DECISION
Page 3

established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a
major, international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of
the following ten categories of evidence:

(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of
endeavor;

(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field
for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements
of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts
in their disciplines or fields;

(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade
publications or other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field
for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title,
date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation;

(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a
panel, as a judge of he work of others in the same or an allied field of
specialization for which classification is sought;

(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business related contributions of major significance in the
field;

(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field,
in professional or major trade publications or other major media;

(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic
exhibitions or showcases;

(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role
for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation;

(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other
significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the
field; or

(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box
office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales.

In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit)
reviewed the denial of a petition filed under this classification. Kazarian
v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (91h Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir
. 2010). Although the court upheld the our decision to deny the petition,
the court took issue with the our evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a
given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect
___________________________
1 Specifically, the court stated that we had unilaterally imposed novel
substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3Xiv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).

NON-PRECEDENT DECISION
Page4

to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded
that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance
of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria,

those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits
determination." Id. at 1121-22.

The court stated that our evaluation rested on an improper understanding of
the regulations. Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of
the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper procedure is to count
the types of evidence provided (which we did) and if the petitioner failed
to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant
has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence
(as the we concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The
court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to
this procedure:

If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines
whether the evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that
the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very
top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the
alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. §
204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary
ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i).

Id. at 1119-20.

Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first
counted and then considered in the context of a final merits determination.

II. Analysis

A. Evidentiary Criteria

This petition, filed on April 1, 2013, seeks to classify the petitioner as
an alien with extraordinary ability as a research scientist specializing in
bioinorganic chemistry. We affirm the director's determination that the
petitioner's evidence meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(
h)(3)(iv) and (vi). Upon review of the petitioner's appeal and the
documentation of record, we find that the petitioner's evidence meets the
additional category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Accordingly,
the petitioner meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence that
must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5
(h)(3).

B. Final Merits Determination
We will next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the
evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (
1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8
C.F.R.

NON-PRECEDENT DECISION
Page 5

§ 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or
international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized
in the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204
.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20.

In the present matter, the petitioner has submitted extensive documentation
of his achievements and has demonstrated a "career of acclaimed work in the
field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19,
1990). The submitted evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's
sustained national and international acclaim and that his achievements have
been recognized in the field of expertise. In addition, the submitted
documentation shows that the petitioner is among that small percentage who
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.

llI. Conclusion

ln review, the petitioner has submitted evidence qualifying under at least
three of the ten categories of evidence and established a "level of
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who
have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and "sustained
national or international acclaim." His achievements have been recognized in
his field of expertise. The petitioner has established that he seeks to
continue working in the same field in the United States. The petitioner has
established that bis entry into the United States will substantially benefit
prospectively the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has established
eligibility for the benefit sought under section 203 of the Act.

In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.
S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BlA 2013). Here, that
burden has been met.

ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

美国移民局2014年审理积压案件已全面启动,本律所在2014年5月份单月截至5/31为止
已收到了104起EB1和NIW的批准通知,另外1至4月也收到了超过142份EB1和NIW的批准通
知,总计2014年到5/31为止已收到超过246起EB1和NIW的批准通知,持续在美国EB1/NIW
绿卡申请移民服务领域保持领导地位。
http://cn.wegreened.com/eb1_niw_approvals

去年2013年本律所处理的EB-1及NIW获准案件超过600件,案件成功率超过98.5%。在
2013年,本事务所收到了超过516 封EB1 与 NIW 的纸本获准通知,这些客户都是在一
开始准备申请案时即委托本事务所来办理,案件成功率超过 98.5%*。

除此之外,大约有 70 件申请案是经其他律师事务所处理丶或自行 DIY 申请后,收到
移民局的要求补件通知 (RFE)的个案。这些案件随后在本事务所协助下准确回应RFE,
进而成功通过移民局审核。另外,本事务所亦协助 30 件需客户雇主赞助的 EB1B 案件
准备资料,并顺利取得获准通知。由于本事务所并非这些 EB1B 案件中的送件律师,所
以我们未能取得这些案件的获准通知。

北美联合律师事务所(wegreened.com)首先透过个案评估,推荐申请者最适合的申请类
型。然后依照不同申请者的相应资质条件背景以及申请者提供的资料撰写最优质的推荐
信并将草稿交由推荐人与申请人修改,最终由专业律师为每位申请者量身打造最合适的
申请书(Petition Letter)。本事务所投入了大量人力资源,研究分析每件成功或失败
的个案丶AAO决议丶司法审查意见以及移民局的内部备忘录,将这些信息全部纳入本所
的数据库系统,为帮助申请备案。我们精心优质的服务为客户轻松解决了后顾之忧,帮
助客户最终顺利取得绿卡。如果您有意申请绿卡,请将个人简历寄送至law@wegreened.
com ,我们律师会为您进行免费个案评估,并在24小时工作时间之内为您提供评估结果。


*截至 2013 年 12 月为止,所有 NIW 申请的成功率为 98.5%,而使用我们Approval
or Refund service 的 NIW 申请成功率为 99.5%。

*截至 2013 年 12 月为止,所有 EB1 申请的成功率为 95%,而使用我们Approval or
Refund service 的EB1 申请成功率为 99%。

*此成功率仅包含自始自终委托本事务所办理的案件,并不包含经其他律师事务所办理
及自行 DIY 的 RFE 案件。






















[快速返回]
赞助链接
未名交友
将您的链接放在这儿
联系我们 - 服务条款 - 隐私权政策
版权所有 - 未名空间 - 中国大陆站(mitbbs.com.cn)- since 1996
京ICP备11000798号