Date of Decision: FEB. 7, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Architect
Field: Architecture and Design
Nationality: Georgia
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- 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: The petitioner’s work was featured in a digital architecture and design magazine with a significant readership. However, this material was self-submitted, not authored independently, and thus does not fully satisfy the criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
- Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor: The petitioner presented awards received within Georgia. These awards were not proven to have national or international recognition in the field of architecture and design.
- Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases: The petitioner’s work was included in project spec books and reposted on social media. These do not qualify as artistic exhibitions or showcases.
- Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in the field: The petitioner’s earnings did not demonstrate a high salary or significant remuneration compared to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
The petitioner’s awards were not recognized at a national or international level. The documentation lacked evidence of the awards’ significance in the broader architectural community.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
The petitioner’s designs were featured in an online magazine through self-submission, which does not meet the criterion for independent published material about the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
No evidence was provided to support the claim of original contributions of major significance in the field of architecture and design.
Participation as a Judge
There was no evidence presented that the petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field.
Membership in Associations
No evidence was submitted regarding the petitioner’s membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner did not present evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed
The petitioner did not provide evidence of having performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
The petitioner’s income did not meet the criterion for high salary or remuneration relative to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts
No evidence was provided of commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
- Awards and Prizes Documentation: Included certificates and announcements of awards.
- Published Materials: Included online articles featuring the petitioner’s designs.
- Project Spec Books: Documented the petitioner’s architectural projects.
- Tax Documents: Provided details of the petitioner’s earnings.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed due to insufficient evidence meeting the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not provide adequate documentation to satisfy at least three of the ten criteria required for the EB-1 classification. Additionally, the overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the top of the field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial and independent evidence of their achievements and potentially reapplying with additional documentation.
