Date of Decision: December 6, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Former Professor
Field: [Specific Field of Expertise not provided]
Nationality: [Nationality not provided]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Criterion 1: [Description not provided]
- Criterion 2: [Description not provided]
- Criterion 3: [Description not provided]
Criteria Not Met:
- Criterion 1: [Description not provided]
- Criterion 2: [Description not provided]
- Criterion 3: [Description not provided]
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The petitioner did not provide evidence of a major internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- No new published materials were provided that met the required standards.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s submissions did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
- No evidence was provided regarding participation as a judge of the work of others.
Membership in Associations:
- Membership evidence did not satisfy the criteria for extraordinary ability.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner did not provide new scholarly articles that were considered in the decision.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Evidence of performing a leading or critical role was insufficient.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- No relevant artistic exhibitions or showcases were provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- High salary or remuneration evidence was not presented.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- No commercial successes in the performing arts were evidenced.
Supporting Documentation
- Brief: Provided a summary of assertions but failed to demonstrate new facts.
- Previous Motion Filings: Copies of previous filings and decisions, already part of the record.
- USCIS Receipt Notices and Transfer Notices: Included in the submission but did not contribute new information.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motions to reopen and reconsider were both dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to provide new facts or demonstrate how the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The submitted evidence was insufficient to satisfy the requirements for the extraordinary ability classification.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider providing new, substantive evidence or seek legal counsel for further guidance on potential future motions or appeals.
