Date of Decision: August 22, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Audiologist
Field: Audiology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner provided evidence of having authored scholarly articles in the field of audiology. These articles were published in professional journals, demonstrating the Petitioner’s contributions to academic research in his field.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards for Excellence:
The Petitioner provided evidence of receiving a scholarship and a prize during his doctoral studies. However, the documentation did not establish that these awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. The awards were based on potential and promise rather than demonstrated excellence.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner submitted evidence of membership in certain associations. However, the membership criteria for these associations did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, failing to meet the necessary standard for this criterion.
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided articles and mentions in various publications. However, the majority of these materials focused on events or were promotional in nature, lacking the necessary detail and credibility as major media or trade publications.
Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner submitted evidence of presenting research posters at conferences. However, the documentation did not establish that these conferences were artistic exhibitions or showcases. The evidence also lacked confirmation of the presentations at the claimed conferences.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The awards received were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in audiology. The documentation provided was insufficient to establish the significance of these awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials provided were mainly promotional or event-focused, lacking the depth and recognition necessary to meet the criteria for published material in major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions were praised in reference letters but were not shown to be of major significance to the field. The evidence lacked specific examples of how his work significantly influenced the audiology field.
Participation as a Judge:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s memberships did not require outstanding achievements, failing to meet this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner’s articles in professional journals met this criterion, demonstrating his contributions to academic research.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner’s presentations at conferences did not qualify as artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable based on the field of audiology.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included articles, research posters, membership evidence, and awards received during doctoral studies. However, these documents did not sufficiently establish the Petitioner’s recognition or meet the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations. The overall review of the submitted materials did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and detailed evidence to support the criteria that were not met. Ensuring that all documentation includes specific details about the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions on the field is crucial for any future submissions.
