Date of Decision: August 24, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Doctoral Student and Teaching Assistant
Field: Mathematics
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published material about the petitioner:
The petitioner provided evidence of an article about his work published on a website related to an audio equipment manufacturer.
Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in his field, fulfilling the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards:
No evidence provided.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements:
No evidence provided.
Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his contributions had major significance in the field of mathematics.
Leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that his roles within various organizations were leading or critical.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration:
No evidence provided.
Commercial successes in the performing arts:
No evidence provided.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner did not provide evidence of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards.
- Key quotes or references: “The petitioner has not established that he received a major, internationally recognized award.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner provided an article about his work, but it did not meet the standards for major trade publications or other major media.
- Key quotes or references: “The petitioner has not established that the publications qualify as ‘major.'”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s contributions were significant but did not reach the level of major significance required for this criterion.
- Key quotes or references: “The petitioner has not shown that his presentations contributed to the field to the extent that they were of major significance.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner served as a judge of the work of others in his field.
- Key quotes or references: “The petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others, satisfying the criterion.”
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner did not demonstrate leading or critical roles within organizations.
- Key quotes or references: “The petitioner has not established that he has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of high salary or remuneration.
- Key quotes or references: “The petitioner has not established that he commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in his field.”
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
- Artistic Exhibitions: Evidence of the petitioner’s work displayed at artistic exhibitions.
- Judging Work: Letters confirming the petitioner’s participation as a judge at multiple exhibitions.
- Awards Documentation: Information about the petitioner’s prize at the International Biennial of Architecture.
- Media Coverage: Articles about the petitioner’s work in Deco & Arquitectura and La Cara Buena del Mundo.
- Salary Data: A letter from an accountant comparing the petitioner’s income to other artists.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for the EB-1 classification. The documentation lacked necessary details, corroborative evidence, and objective proof of significant contributions to the field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more detailed and comprehensive evidence to support future petitions or appeals.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
