Date of Decision: May 28, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Assistant Professor
Field: Sociology
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner provided evidence of reviewing manuscripts for professional journals.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored articles published in respected journals.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Prizes or Awards: The petitioner claimed recognition through the “2020 Best Article Award,” but the evidence did not demonstrate that this award was nationally or internationally recognized.
Key Points from the Decision
Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner submitted evidence of serving as a peer reviewer for journals in her field, satisfying this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner’s authored articles were published in professional journals, meeting the criterion for scholarly publications.
Lesser Prizes or Awards:
The “2020 Best Article Award” was not shown to have national or international recognition for excellence in sociology. Letters and background documentation lacked sufficient evidence to establish the award’s significance in the field.
Other Considerations:
- The petitioner previously held O-1 nonimmigrant status but failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim under the EB-1 immigrant visa standard.
- No major internationally recognized awards were presented as evidence.
Supporting Documentation
Peer Review Activities: Evidence of reviewing journal submissions.
Scholarly Publications: Articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
Award Documentation: Background and letters supporting the “2020 Best Article Award” lacked proof of field-wide recognition.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria but failed to satisfy a third. Without meeting at least three criteria, the petitioner did not qualify for a final merits determination. The record did not establish the petitioner as being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
