Date of Decision: July 11, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Attorney, Mediator, Journalist, and Author
Field: Law and Media
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The petitioner met this criterion by serving as a judge in various capacities related to his fields of expertise.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner provided evidence of his scholarly articles published in professional journals.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser National or International Awards: The petitioner submitted a certificate from an international event, but did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the award was nationally or internationally recognized. Additionally, a recent award received after the filing of the petition was not considered relevant for establishing eligibility at the time of filing.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner claimed that his award led to membership in a prestigious association, but failed to provide evidence that the membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his contributions had a major impact on his field.
High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner did not provide evidence to demonstrate that his salary was significantly high in relation to others in his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner provided a certificate from an international event and a local award for mediation work. However, these awards were not demonstrated to be nationally or internationally recognized.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s contributions were acknowledged but not demonstrated to have major significance in his fields of law and media.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served as a judge in various capacities, fulfilling this criterion.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his membership in associations required outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner demonstrated this criterion by providing evidence of his scholarly articles published in professional journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner did not provide evidence to demonstrate a high salary compared to others in his field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included certificates, letters from colleagues, scholarly articles, and letters of support from various professionals. However, much of the evidence did not meet the necessary criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria. While the petitioner satisfied the criteria for judging and authorship of scholarly articles, the totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of individual achievements and acclaim within the field, focusing on personal awards, critical reviews, and documented contributions of major significance to strengthen future petitions.
