Date of Decision: January 29, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Architectural Designer
Field: Architecture
Nationality: Chinese
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Awards: The petitioner has won lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in the field of architecture.
Published Materials: There is published material about the petitioner in professional or major media.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that their contributions have been of major significance in the field of architecture.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner received several architectural awards, recognized nationally or internationally. These awards were acknowledged by the Director but deemed insufficient to prove sustained national or international acclaim on their own.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Several articles were published about the petitioner in professional and major media, recognizing their work and contributions in the field of architecture. However, these were seen as indicative of recognition but not necessarily major significance.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner presented letters from several individuals in the field of architecture, praising their work and contributions. However, these letters lacked specific details on how the petitioner’s work had a major impact on the field. For example:
- A professor described the petitioner as capable of transforming radical concepts into solid design schemes but did not explain the larger significance.
- A design director highlighted the petitioner’s role in successful projects but did not elaborate on the specific influence of the petitioner’s contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner played significant roles in various high-profile architectural projects, but the significance of these roles was not adequately demonstrated to be of major importance in the field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Award Certificates: Documentation of various architectural awards won by the petitioner.
Published Articles: Articles in professional and major media highlighting the petitioner’s achievements and contributions.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from professionals in the field praising the petitioner’s work but lacking specific details on the significance of contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that their contributions were of major significance in the field of architecture. While they met some criteria, the evidence did not support the required sustained national or international acclaim or show that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more detailed evidence of the significance of their contributions.
They should address any gaps in demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim and specific plans for continued work in the United States.
Seeking additional professional endorsements that clearly articulate the major impact of their work on the field of architecture could strengthen a future application.
