Date of Decision: September 3, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Blogger, Writer, Political Analyst
Field: Political Analysis
Nationality: China
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published material about the alien: The petitioner provided articles from major media outlets like The New York Times and the Sydney Morning Herald that described his career and contributions.
Authorship of scholarly articles: The petitioner submitted a chapter from an academic book he co-edited, which included references to the work of other scholars and was recognized as a scholarly article.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards: The petitioner provided lists where he was mentioned as a top blogger, but there was no evidence of these lists being recognized awards. Additionally, a certificate for his novel did not establish national or international recognition in his field.
Original contributions of major significance: While the petitioner’s work was cited in academic journals and had a considerable online following, there was insufficient evidence to prove these contributions had major significance in the field of political analysis.
Leading or critical role: The petitioner’s roles as a vice president and consultant were not supported by evidence of the duties or the distinguished reputation of the organizations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner submitted articles indicating he was listed as a top blogger, but these were not considered recognized awards. A certificate for a novel he wrote also did not establish national or international recognition.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Articles from The New York Times and Sydney Morning Herald described the petitioner’s career and contributions, meeting the criterion for published material about the alien.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s work was cited in academic journals, but there was no evidence to establish these contributions as majorly significant in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner provided evidence of a scholarly chapter in an academic book, meeting the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s roles were not supported by sufficient evidence to establish them as leading or critical within distinguished organizations.
Supporting Documentation
- Articles from Major Media Outlets: Described the petitioner’s career and disappearance, providing context and recognition in his field.
- Scholarly Chapter: Demonstrated authorship of a scholarly article through a co-edited academic book.
- Certificates and Lists: Provided documentation of being listed as a top blogger and a certificate for a novel, but these did not meet the criteria for recognized awards.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed. The petitioner did not meet the requirements of at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria, and therefore, did not establish the sustained acclaim necessary for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of recognized awards, major contributions, and leading roles. The articles and scholarly chapter met some criteria but were not enough to overturn the initial decision.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of recognized awards, major contributions, and leading roles within distinguished organizations before reapplying.
