Date of Decision: May 15, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Historian
Field: Chinese History
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii):
The petitioner provided two articles published on major media websites. One article from September 2015 discusses the petitioner’s career and background, and another from May 2017 describes a talk given by the petitioner.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi):
The petitioner corrected deficiencies in the initial evidence, and it was established that four of his books published by meet the requirements of this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v):
The petitioner submitted several letters from fellow scholars praising his unique methods and insights into Chinese constitutional history. However, these letters did not identify specific ways in which the petitioner’s contributions have been of major significance to the field. They described his work as having “far-reaching theoretical value” but not generally accepted by the mainstream academic community.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Two articles published on major media websites discussed the petitioner’s career and public talks, meeting the criterion for published material.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
While the petitioner was praised for his unique methods and insights, the evidence did not demonstrate that his contributions have made a significant impact on the field of Chinese history.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Membership in Associations:
Not discussed in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored four books that meet the requirements of this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner provided several pieces of evidence, including:
Two articles published on major media websites discussing his career and public talks.
Several letters from fellow scholars praising his unique methods and insights into Chinese constitutional history.
Four books authored by the petitioner that meet the requirements for scholarly articles.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to meet the initial criteria required for EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. While the petitioner demonstrated some contributions and recognition, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this classification.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider consulting with new legal counsel to explore any further options for appeal or other immigration benefits for which he may be eligible.
