Date of Decision: AUG. 29, 2016
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Dream Expert
Field: Dream Psychology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner: The record contains published material about the Petitioner in major media.
Criteria Not Met:
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Petitioner did not demonstrate judging the work of others in her field or an allied field prior to the filing date.
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner failed to show that she performed in a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation before the filing date.
Comparable Evidence: The Petitioner did not provide persuasive comparable evidence to satisfy additional criteria.
Key Points from the Decision
Participation as a Judge:
- The new letter from the board chair did not confirm that the Petitioner had performed judging services as of the filing date.
- The Petitioner was involved with the organization since 2011, but there was no detailed evidence of her judging responsibilities prior to the filing date.
Leading or Critical Role:
- The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show she served in a leading or critical role before January 2014.
- The organization’s distinguished reputation was not adequately documented.
Comparable Evidence:
- The Petitioner did not sufficiently explain which criteria did not apply to her occupation.
- Additional exhibits did not constitute persuasive comparable evidence.
Supporting Documentation
- New Letter from Board Chair: Discusses the Petitioner’s role but lacks specifics on judging duties and does not confirm pre-filing date involvement.
- Television Appearance Documentation: Does not confirm appearance prior to the filing date.
- Email from Regional Representative: Confirms the Petitioner’s role in organizing a regional conference but lacks details on her duties.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen is denied.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to establish eligibility as of the date of filing. The new evidence provided did not demonstrate that she met more than one criterion.
Next Steps: The Petitioner should consider providing more detailed and specific evidence to support her claims in any future motions or appeals.
