Date of Decision: August 23, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Architect
Field: Architecture
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner provided evidence of his work displayed at artistic exhibitions. Specifically, the petitioner submitted a certificate showing that one of his works was shown at the National Exhibition, and other works were displayed at exhibitions such as the International Architecture Exhibition and the China National Art Museum.
Criteria Not Met:
Awards and Prizes:
The petitioner listed several awards for his architectural designs, but did not demonstrate that these accolades were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. The provided evidence lacked details on the award criteria, awarding entities, or the recognition’s scope.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner claimed membership in three associations, but the membership requirements did not show outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. The provided documentation did not demonstrate that the associations required significant professional achievements for membership.
Published Material:
The petitioner provided portions of publications featuring his architectural designs. However, the materials did not meet the criterion as they were not primarily about the petitioner, lacked significant national or international distribution, and did not provide the necessary details such as the title, date, and author.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner claimed to have performed leading or critical roles in several organizations. However, the evidence provided did not establish the distinguished reputation of these organizations or the specific nature and impact of the petitioner’s roles within them.
Commercial Success:
The petitioner, being an architect, did not meet this criterion as it pertains specifically to the performing arts, requiring documentation such as box office receipts or record sales.
High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner submitted architectural contracts indicating total fees associated with design work, but did not provide evidence of the salary or remuneration received. There was no comparative data to demonstrate that any received remuneration was considered high relative to other architects in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the awards received were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The provided materials were not primarily about the petitioner and lacked significant distribution. They were mostly catalogs featuring numerous architectural designs without specific focus on the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- No evidence was provided to demonstrate that the petitioner made original contributions of major significance in the field of architecture.
Participation as a Judge:
- No evidence was provided regarding the petitioner’s participation as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Membership in Associations:
- The associations listed did not require outstanding achievements for membership, failing to meet the evidentiary criteria.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- No evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional journals was provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to demonstrate leading or critical roles in organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- The petitioner successfully demonstrated that his work was displayed at several artistic exhibitions.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of high salary or remuneration.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- This criterion was not applicable to the petitioner’s profession.
Supporting Documentation
- Certificates and documents showing the petitioner’s work displayed at various exhibitions.
- Membership certificates and background information on the associations.
- Portions of publications featuring the petitioner’s designs.
- Appointment letters and descriptions of roles within various organizations.
- Architectural contracts listing design fees but lacking evidence of salary or remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. The totality of the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of architecture.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence that clearly meets the evidentiary criteria, or seek legal advice to explore other visa options.
