Date of Decision: April 21, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Development Director
Field: Development
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Awards and Prizes: The petitioner claimed to have won significant awards. However, the decision notes that the evidence presented did not sufficiently demonstrate the significance or the competitive nature of these awards on a national or international level.
Judging of the Work of Others: The petitioner served as a judge of the work of others in their field. This criterion was accepted as met, but it was not enough to establish sustained national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner presented evidence of original contributions of major significance in the field. However, the final merits determination concluded that these contributions did not rise to the level of extraordinary ability required.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The petitioner provided some published materials about their work, but the decision indicated that these materials were not substantial or significant enough to meet the criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: While the petitioner authored several articles, the decision noted that the articles did not appear in prestigious or widely recognized journals in the field.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner claimed membership in associations, but the decision highlighted that the memberships were not indicative of extraordinary ability.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner’s awards were not recognized as sufficiently significant or prestigious on a national or international level.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The provided materials were not deemed substantial or significant.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions, though original, were not considered to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner’s judging roles were acknowledged but insufficient for the overall acclaim required.
Membership in Associations:
The memberships did not demonstrate the extraordinary ability required by the classification.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The articles were not published in high-impact or widely recognized journals.
Supporting Documentation
Awards Documentation:
Summarized evidence of awards, highlighting the nature and significance.
Judging Roles Documentation:
Summarized evidence of judging roles, detailing the events and their importance.
Published Articles:
List of articles authored by the petitioner, with a summary of their impact and recognition.
Association Memberships:
Documentation of memberships, focusing on the criteria for joining and the recognition within the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were both dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide new facts or documentary evidence to support reopening the case.
The arguments presented in the motion to reconsider were nearly identical to those previously submitted and did not demonstrate an error in the application of law or USCIS policy.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of national or international acclaim and reassessing the criteria for extraordinary ability before any future filings.
