Date of Decision: February 22, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-129
Case Type: O-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Former Professor
Field: Higher Education
Nationality: [Nationality not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- [Criterion 1]: [Description not provided in the document]
- [Criterion 2]: [Description not provided in the document]
Criteria Not Met:
- [Criterion 1]: Insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.
- [Criterion 2]: Lack of documentation supporting the claimed international “Innovare Award” in 2005, which did not exist prior to 2010.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of Findings: The Petitioner claimed to have received the “Innovare Award” in 2005. However, records indicate that this award did not exist internationally until 2010.
- Key Quotes or References: “The Petitioner has still not addressed our questions surrounding his claimed international ‘Innovare Award’ in 2005, as it appears the international version of the award did not exist prior to 2010.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of Findings: None provided.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of Findings: None provided.
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of Findings: None provided.
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of Findings: None provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of Findings: None provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of Findings: None provided.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of Findings: None provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of Findings: None provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Summary of Findings: None provided.
Supporting Documentation
- Petitioner submitted a statement asserting eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability.
- Request for consideration based on President Biden’s February 2, 2021, fact sheet was found irrelevant to the issuance of visas to individuals self-petitioning as extraordinary ability.
- Claims of eligibility evaluated by three “Special Masters Lawyers” were unsupported by evidence.
- Request to convert the petition to a second preference national interest waiver was denied as it constitutes a material change.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Motion to Reopen and Reconsider Dismissed
Reasoning:
- Petitioner failed to provide new facts or evidence to support reopening.
- No errors of law or policy were found in the previous decision.
- Claims of eligibility did not meet the specific criteria for an extraordinary ability visa.
Next Steps:
- Recommendations or Next Steps for the Petitioner: Consider seeking legal advice to address the deficiencies noted in the petition. Ensure that any future submissions are supported by verifiable and relevant evidence directly addressing the criteria for the requested classification.
