Date of Decision: March 15, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Architectural Designer
Field: Architecture
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Published Material:
- The petitioner provided evidence of published material about him, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
- Judging:
- The petitioner met the criterion by participating as a judge of the work of others in his field, as outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
- Artistic Display of Work:
- The petitioner satisfied the criterion by having his designs displayed at artistic exhibitions in China, fulfilling the requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii).
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards for Excellence:
- The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the criterion for receiving awards for excellence, as specified in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The petitioner claimed to have received awards for excellence but did not provide adequate documentation to satisfy this criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Evidence of published material about the petitioner was deemed sufficient.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s submissions did not convincingly demonstrate original contributions of major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
- The petitioner successfully demonstrated participation as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Membership in Associations:
- Not applicable as the criterion was not claimed.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Not applicable as the criterion was not claimed.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Not applicable as the criterion was not claimed.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- The petitioner’s work has been displayed at artistic exhibitions in China, fulfilling this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Not applicable as the criterion was not claimed.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable as the criterion was not claimed.
Supporting Documentation
- The petitioner provided evidence for the published material, participation as a judge, and artistic display of his work, but lacked sufficient documentation for awards and original contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The Director’s decision to deny the petition was withdrawn. The case was remanded for a new decision to undertake a final merits determination based on the totality of the evidence provided.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met the initial evidentiary criteria by satisfying three out of the ten required criteria. However, a final merits determination is necessary to evaluate whether the petitioner’s accomplishments demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and place him among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
- The Director will perform a final merits determination to assess the petitioner’s overall eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
