Date of Decision: November 17, 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 in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Awards: The petitioner provided evidence of awards in their field.
Judging: The petitioner served as a judge in their area of expertise.
Original Contributions: The petitioner demonstrated original contributions of major significance to their field.
Criteria Not Met:
Sustained Acclaim: The petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.
Top of Field: The petitioner did not prove they are among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner presented evidence of awards. However, the weight and significance of these awards in demonstrating sustained acclaim were not sufficient to meet the extraordinary ability standard.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
While there were some published materials, they did not provide sufficient evidence of the petitioner’s extraordinary ability.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner made original contributions, but these were not deemed significant enough to establish sustained acclaim.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner participated as a judge in their field, but this alone did not establish extraordinary ability.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s memberships were not enough to demonstrate they are at the top of their field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored articles, but they were not sufficient to prove extraordinary ability.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s role in their field was acknowledged, but it did not meet the criteria for extraordinary ability.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable to this petitioner.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of a high salary or remuneration indicative of extraordinary ability.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable to this petitioner.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted various supporting documents, including evidence of awards, judging roles, original contributions, published materials, and association memberships. However, these were not sufficient to meet the final merits determination for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and 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 did not demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy in the previous decision. The petitioner did not meet the required standard of sustained national or international acclaim and being among the top individuals in their field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner can consider gathering more substantial evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrating their position at the very top of their field before filing another motion or petition.
