Date of Decision: FEB.19, 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:
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The petitioner attempted to establish that she had judged the work of others in her field, referencing a role as a Site Administrator overseeing and grading student work.
Leading or Critical Role: It was claimed that the petitioner played a critical role within an organization related to dream research, although evidence was insufficient to support these claims.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: No sufficient evidence was provided that the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance in her field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: There were no records of published materials about the petitioner’s contributions to the field.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: There was no evidence provided that the petitioner commanded a high salary indicative of extraordinary ability.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.
Key Points from the Decision
The appeal was denied as the petitioner failed to adequately demonstrate with concrete evidence that she met the required criteria for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. Her submissions were found insufficient to establish eligibility at the time of the original petition filing.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted various letters and statements, including a letter from a Site Administrator and another professional, but these were deemed insufficient as they did not convincingly establish the criteria claimed.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was denied as the petitioner did not provide new facts supported by adequate documentation to establish eligibility for the extraordinary ability classification.
Reasoning: The decision emphasized the importance of presenting concrete, credible evidence at the time of the initial filing and not relying on future anticipated roles or contributions.
Next Steps: It is recommended that the petitioner, if possessing new significant achievements or evidence, consider filing a new petition with comprehensive and contemporaneous documentation.
