Date of Decision: June 15, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Instructional Coordinator for a Law Firm
Field: Education and Law
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner submitted evidence relating to the Beneficiary’s review of papers for the journal Interdisciplinary Literary Studies and for conferences organized by the International Academic Forum (IAFOR). Although evidence of invitations to review papers was provided, the documentation did not establish that the Beneficiary completed these reviews.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Beneficiary authored scholarly articles published in journals such as The Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue, The Indian Review of World Literature, and the International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner submitted certificates acknowledging the Beneficiary’s participation and contributions, such as appreciation certificates from the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction and a letter of appreciation from the Humanities Education and Research Association (HERA). These certificates and letters were considered participation acknowledgments rather than prizes or awards for excellence. The provided evidence did not demonstrate that these recognitions were nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field.
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner submitted several articles citing the Beneficiary’s work. However, the articles did not focus on the Beneficiary or his work specifically and did not meet the requirements for published material in major media. The references to the Beneficiary’s work in bibliographies did not establish that the articles were about him or his contributions.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner provided articles citing the Beneficiary’s work and letters praising his contributions. However, the evidence did not establish that his contributions were of major significance. The citations and letters lacked detailed information on how the Beneficiary’s work had been widely implemented or had significantly impacted the field.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner referenced the Beneficiary’s roles in various organizations but did not provide sufficient evidence that these roles were leading or critical. The documentation did not establish the organizations’ distinguished reputations or provide specific details on how the Beneficiary’s roles were critical to their success.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Beneficiary did not establish that he personally received nationally or internationally recognized awards. The provided certificates were acknowledgments of participation rather than awards for excellence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about the Beneficiary were in major trade or professional publications or other major media. The articles cited the Beneficiary’s work but did not focus on him or his contributions.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Beneficiary did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The evidence lacked specific details on the impact and significance of his contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Beneficiary served as a reviewer for scholarly journals and conferences, but the documentation did not establish that he completed the reviews, thus failing to meet this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Beneficiary authored several scholarly articles in reputable professional journals, satisfying this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Beneficiary did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he performed leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met one criterion but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
