Date of Decision: AUG 12, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Dream Expert
Field: Psychology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Published Material about the Petitioner:
The petitioner appeared on a television show as a dream analyst in December 2013, which was broadcasted on a major television channel, constituting “major media.” Accordingly, the petitioner submitted published material about her in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to her work in the field for which classification is sought.
Criteria Not Met
Documentation of Membership in Associations:
The petitioner asserted that she met this criterion because she is a member of certain associations and has an IMDb profile. However, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that these associations require outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international experts. Additionally, the record lacked evidence to support her claims regarding membership requirements and evaluation by experts.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not provide evidence that her contributions, such as her book or app, had a significant impact on the field of psychology. The evidence did not show how many copies of her book were sold or its reception in the field. Similarly, the app’s impact was not demonstrated to be of major significance.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner provided articles she authored, but they lacked the attributes of scholarly articles, such as citations, peer-review, or editing by an editor. The articles did not demonstrate substantial impact or recognition in the field.
Leading or Critical Role in Distinguished Organizations:
The petitioner claimed to have played critical roles in certain organizations. However, the evidence did not provide specific information about her duties, title, or impact. The petitioner did not show that the organizations had a distinguished reputation or that her role significantly influenced the organization.
Other Criteria Not Met:
The petitioner also did not meet criteria related to evidence of high salary or remuneration, participation as a judge of others’ work, and others due to lack of supporting documentation or insufficient evidence.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No specific awards or prizes were mentioned that met the criteria.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner met this criterion through her appearance on a television show as a dream analyst, which was broadcasted on a major channel.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not demonstrate her book or app had a significant impact on the field of psychology.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable in this case.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that her memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner’s articles did not meet the scholarly standard and lacked peer-review or significant impact.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not demonstrate a leading or critical role in organizations with distinguished reputations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
No evidence provided to meet this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
- March 30, 2015 letter from a clinical psychologist: This letter supported the petitioner’s expertise but did not meet the specific criteria for extraordinary ability.
- March 29, 2014 letter from a university faculty member: Similar to the first, this letter provided support but lacked necessary impact evidence.
- Undated letter from Operations Director: This letter failed to demonstrate the required impact or significance in the field.
- Other documents and letters: Various other documents and letters provided but were insufficient in meeting the stringent requirements for the EB1 classification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petition remains denied.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate eligibility for the EB1 classification, specifically not meeting the criteria for extraordinary ability.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of her achievements and impact in the field or consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance on possible motions or alternative visa options.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
