Date of Decision: SEPT. 25, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Attorney
Field: Law
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the work of others:
The Petitioner demonstrated that he judged a round of an international competition in March 2010.
Original contributions of major significance:
The Petitioner previously asserted eligibility under this criterion but failed to meet the burden of proof.
Criteria Not Met:
One-time achievement:
The Petitioner did not provide qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement.
Nationally or internationally recognized awards:
The Petitioner failed to submit evidence of such awards.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate membership in any associations with stringent criteria for outstanding achievements.
Published material about the Petitioner relating to his work:
While the Petitioner cited the publication of his doctoral thesis, he did not demonstrate that the article was published before the petition’s filing date.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The Petitioner’s article was published in the Summer 2010 issue of a journal, which does not satisfy the requirement as the petition filing date was May 14, 2010.
Leading or critical role:
The Petitioner cited his role as an additional representative to the United Nations but did not demonstrate how this role was leading or critical to the organization.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of any awards or prizes that meet the regulatory criteria.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The publication of the Petitioner’s article in the Summer 2010 issue did not meet the required timeline.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner claimed to have made significant contributions but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner demonstrated participation in judging an international competition in March 2010.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate membership in associations with stringent criteria for outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner’s article published after the filing date did not meet the required timeline.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner cited his role as an additional representative to the United Nations but failed to demonstrate its critical nature.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Statement by Petitioner: A statement was submitted with the motion but did not establish eligibility.
- Evidence of Judging: Documents supporting the Petitioner’s role in judging a competition in March 2010.
- Publication Evidence: Details of the Petitioner’s article published in Summer 2010, which did not meet the required timeline.
- Association By-Laws: Documents describing the organizational structure of the association but not establishing the critical nature of the Petitioner’s role.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the required criteria for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. The evidence submitted did not demonstrate that the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence and reapplying, ensuring that all criteria are met and properly documented.
