Date of Decision: September 11, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Public Policy Specialist
Field: Creativity and Public Policy
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Alien:
The petitioner provided book reviews from 2002 and 1994. However, these reviews were not considered about the petitioner personally but about his books. The publications in which the reviews appeared were not proven to be major trade publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner submitted evidence of book publications and recommendation letters. However, he did not demonstrate that these works had major significance in the field. The letters did not provide specific examples of significant impact in the field.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner claimed roles in facilitating collaborations and sister city relationships. However, detailed evidence of his specific duties and the overall significance of these roles was lacking. The petitioner did not provide information showing his responsibilities and the impact of his involvement in these roles.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the book reviews were about him personally and that the publications were professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his book publications had a wide impact on the field.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner did not show that his roles in facilitating collaborations and relationships were leading or critical within the organizations.
Supporting Documentation
- Book Review from 2002: Insufficient evidence that it was about the petitioner personally.
- Book Review from 1994: Insufficient evidence that it was about the petitioner personally.
- Letter from the Mayor of New York (2004): Acknowledged petitioner’s efforts but lacked detailed evidence of the petitioner’s specific role and impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence presented did not demonstrate the petitioner’s significance in his field or his critical role in notable organizations.
Next Steps: The petitioner should consider gathering more robust evidence of his significant contributions, leading roles, and recognition in his field. Legal advice may be beneficial for future appeals or petitions.
