Date of Decision: April 6, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Architect
Field: Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
The petitioner demonstrated that her work had been displayed at artistic exhibitions and showcases.
Criterion 2: Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others
The petitioner provided evidence of her participation as a judge of the work of others in her field.
Criterion 3: Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner submitted evidence of her authorship of scholarly articles and books in professional or major trade publications, meeting this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate how her contributions were of major significance to the field of landscape architecture and urban planning.
Criterion 2: Membership in Associations
The petitioner did not provide evidence that her memberships in associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Criterion 3: Judging the Work of Others
The petitioner’s evidence of participation as a judge did not rise to the level of sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided several articles and publications that featured her work, but they did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions, including her projects and research work, were praised but not shown to be of major significance to the field.
Participation as a Judge:
While the petitioner participated as a judge in her field, the evidence did not demonstrate that this role garnered her sustained national or international acclaim.
Membership in Associations:
The memberships claimed did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: Not applicable
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner’s work was displayed in several artistic exhibitions and showcases, fulfilling this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not applicable
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Publications: Various articles and publications about the petitioner’s work.
Letters of Reference: Letters from colleagues and associates detailing the petitioner’s contributions and roles.
Exhibition Records: Documentation of the petitioner’s work being displayed in artistic exhibitions and showcases.
Employment Records: Documentation of the petitioner’s roles and responsibilities in various projects and organizations.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or show that her professional accomplishments placed her among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence provided did not establish national or international recognition of her achievements or demonstrate major contributions to the field of landscape architecture and urban planning. The petitioner did not show that her professional accomplishments placed her among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on awards with national or international recognition, significant contributions, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. Exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
