Date of Decision: February 25, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Dermatologist
- Field: Skincare and Aesthetic Treatments
- Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
High Remuneration: The petitioner provided evidence of high earnings relative to others in her field.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Individual: The evidence included screenshots and printouts from various sources. However, the materials were primarily promotional or lacked the necessary context and certified translations to be considered published material about the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: Letters supporting the petitioner’s claim of contributions did not identify specific original contributions or explain how these contributions were of major significance in the field. The use of technology developed by others and social media presence were not considered original contributions.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The materials provided were promotional and written for a general audience, not scholarly articles written for learned persons in the field of dermatology.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The petitioner’s participation in trade conventions promoting suppliers’ products did not meet the requirement of being an artistic exhibition or showcase of her work.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not provide evidence that her media appearances or clinic’s reputation were of significant importance to the outcome of the organizations or establishments involved.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: The petitioner’s occupation does not involve performing arts, and she did not provide comparable evidence as required by the regulations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
None applicable. The petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving major, internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of Findings: The petitioner’s appearances on TV and radio shows were documented, but the evidence did not meet the criteria for published material about her. Screenshots and incomplete translations did not provide sufficient context.
Key Quotes or References: The Director noted that marketing materials and directory listings do not constitute published material about the individual.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of Findings: Letters from colleagues and clients praised the petitioner’s skill but did not identify specific original contributions. Use of existing technology and social media presence were not considered original contributions.
Key Quotes or References: The Director emphasized the need for specific, identifiable contributions of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
None applicable. The petitioner did not provide evidence of participating as a judge in her field.
Membership in Associations:
None applicable. The petitioner did not provide evidence of significant contributions leading to membership in distinguished organizations.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of Findings: The articles provided were promotional and written for a general audience. They did not meet the criteria for scholarly articles.
Key Quotes or References: The Director noted that the articles did not demonstrate profound knowledge or scholarship.
Leading or Critical Role:
Summary of Findings: The petitioner’s media appearances and clinic’s reputation were not demonstrated to be of significant importance to the organizations involved.
Key Quotes or References: The Director stated that credible professional obligation does not equate to a critical role.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
None applicable. The petitioner did not provide evidence of her work being displayed in artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of Findings: The petitioner provided evidence of high earnings relative to others in her field.
Key Quotes or References: The Director accepted the petitioner’s evidence of high remuneration.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
None applicable. The petitioner’s occupation does not involve performing arts, and she did not provide comparable evidence.
Supporting Documentation
Reference Letters: Letters from colleagues and clients, which praised the petitioner’s skill but did not identify specific original contributions.
Exhibition Evidence: Information about the petitioner’s participation in trade conventions.
Published Material: Screenshots and printouts from various sources, primarily promotional in nature.
Award Evidence: None applicable.
Income Evidence: Accountant’s letter and tax returns demonstrating high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence provided did not meet the high standard required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Next Steps:
Recommendation: The petitioner may consider providing additional evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or achievements recognized by independent sources to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability in future applications.
