Date of Decision: May 27, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Animal Health and Welfare Specialist
Field: Animal Welfare
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner co-authored an article that appeared in a report and another in the professional journal “Medicina Veterinarina.”
2. Leading Role for an Organization with a Distinguished Reputation:
The petitioner served as the head of a department for the government of a specific region.
3. Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
The petitioner was a member of the Technical Evaluation Committee for the Director General of Agriculture, making decisions regarding funding applications submitted by local animal welfare groups.
Criteria Not Met:
- Evidence of Awards or Prizes:
Although the petitioner was involved in a project that received an award, she was not individually awarded.
2. Impact of Work on National or International Level:
The petitioner’s work did not demonstrate a significant impact on the field at a national or international level.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of Findings:The petitioner was involved in the drafting and implementation of a significant animal protection law which was awarded the Animal Welfare Award, but the award was given to the organization rather than the petitioner individually.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
No specific materials highlighted in the decision.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of Findings: The petitioner played a key role in drafting animal protection laws and policies in her region, but there was insufficient evidence to show these contributions had significant influence beyond the regional level.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of Findings: The petitioner’s role in the Technical Evaluation Committee qualified her as having participated as a judge of the work of others in her field.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of Findings: The petitioner was involved in the Council of Animal Welfare and the Spanish Network for the Development of Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, but these roles did not demonstrate national or international acclaim.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of Findings: The petitioner authored articles in professional journals, which contributed to meeting the evidentiary criteria.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of Findings: The petitioner’s leading role in drafting and implementing regional animal protection laws was recognized, but the impact was not shown to be national or international.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Authorship Evidence:
Articles in “Medicina Veterinarina” and other reports.
2. Reference Letters:
Letters from various officials and experts corroborating the petitioner’s role in drafting laws and policies.
3. Committee Participation:
Documentation of the petitioner’s role in the Technical Evaluation Committee.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning:
While the petitioner met three of the evidentiary criteria, the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence of her impact and acclaim at the national or international level and may reapply if new evidence can be provided. Alternatively, the petitioner might explore other visa categories that might be more appropriate given her qualifications and achievements.
