Date of Decision: February 28, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Not specified
Field: Not specified
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- None
Criteria Not Met:
- Major, Internationally Recognized Award: The Petitioner claimed to have received an award from the Hispanic American World Congress and the World Congress of Universities. However, the evidence provided did not establish that this award is widely reported by international media, recognized by the general public, or garners attention comparable to other major globally recognized awards such as the Nobel Prize, Pulitzer Prize, or Academy Award.
- Lesser Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not satisfy the requirements for demonstrating lesser prizes or awards.
- Other Regulatory Criteria: The Petitioner failed to adequately instruct how the submitted materials applied to specific regulatory criteria. The response to the request for evidence also lacked descriptions of how the evidence demonstrated eligibility under the various criteria.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Hispanic American World Congress and the World Congress of Universities Award meets the requirements of a major, internationally recognized award. The award did not have the widespread recognition or media coverage necessary to fulfill this criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
No specific findings or key quotes were provided to support this criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
No specific findings or key quotes were provided to support this criterion.
Participation as a Judge:
No specific findings or key quotes were provided to support this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
No specific findings or key quotes were provided to support this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
No specific findings or key quotes were provided to support this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
No specific findings or key quotes were provided to support this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
No specific findings or key quotes were provided to support this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
No specific findings or key quotes were provided to support this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
No specific findings or key quotes were provided to support this criterion.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner filed the initial petition with a large amount of evidence but did not adequately instruct how the material applied to any particular regulatory criterion. The response to the request for evidence included some additional information but still lacked detailed explanations connecting the evidence to the eligibility criteria.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner failed to provide specific arguments relating to each regulatory requirement, the evidence that applies to each criterion, and an explanation of how that evidence satisfies each criterion. The generalized statement provided on appeal did not address the Director’s adverse decision adequately.
Next Steps:
It is recommended that the Petitioner reviews the specific evidentiary criteria required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification and provides detailed explanations and evidence directly connecting to these criteria in any future filings.
