Date of Decision: August 25, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Architect
Field: Architecture
Nationality: [Not Provided in Document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored articles in professional publications, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner served as a partner and lead architect with [Company Name] and as a director of the [Institution Name] teaching committee.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The petitioner provided certificates for a “Silver Award” at the 2002 Architectural Design Awards, the “Professional Architect Award” from the Architecture Society of China (ASC) in 2010, and a “Double Gold Award” at the 2015 ASC Architectural Planning and Design Competition. However, the petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to establish that these awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
Published Material: The petitioner provided articles from Designer, China Architecture Mold Net, and ArchDaily. However, these articles did not meet the regulatory requirements as they did not focus on the petitioner and did not establish that the publications were professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner’s certificates for various awards were not sufficient to demonstrate that they were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. The petitioner did not provide supporting documentation showing the national or international significance of these awards or the criteria used to grant them.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided articles from Designer, China Architecture Mold Net, and ArchDaily. However, the articles did not meet the criterion as they were not focused on the petitioner and did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the publications were major media or professional trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable, as the petitioner did not meet the initial requirement of at least three criteria.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable, as there was no evidence provided for this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable, as no membership in associations was discussed.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner provided evidence of authoring articles in professional publications, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner demonstrated his critical role as a partner and lead architect and as a director of a teaching committee, meeting this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable, as no evidence of high salary or remuneration was discussed.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
Reference Letters: Provided letters recognized the petitioner’s roles and contributions but lacked sufficient detail to meet the claimed criteria.
Award Documents: Included certificates for various awards but did not establish that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence.
Published Articles: Included articles from Designer, China Architecture Mold Net, and ArchDaily but did not focus on the petitioner or establish the publications as major media.
Salary Documents: Not applicable, as no salary information was provided.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition in his field. The evidence provided was found to be insufficient to establish his eligibility for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more comprehensive and corroborative evidence to support his claims, focusing on independent recognition and demonstrating how his work has had a significant impact on his field.
