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
Field: Education (Specializing in American Literature and Linguistics)
Nationality: Saudi Arabian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Scholarly Articles:
The Beneficiary has authored scholarly articles in professional publications. This was recognized as meeting one of the evidentiary criteria.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
The provided certificates, such as appreciation certificates from the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction and other organizations, were deemed to acknowledge participation rather than being awards for excellence in the field.
Published Material About the Beneficiary:
The materials provided cited the Beneficiary’s work but did not focus on his contributions. The articles were primarily about the authors’ own work and only mentioned the Beneficiary’s work in bibliographies, failing to meet the criterion for published material about the Beneficiary.
Participation as a Judge:
The evidence submitted did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary completed the reviews requested in emails. There was no supporting documentation proving that the Beneficiary participated as a judge of the work of others.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The evidence, including articles that cited the Beneficiary’s work and letters of recommendation, did not establish the significance of the Beneficiary’s contributions to the field. The letters praised his abilities but did not provide specific information on how his work significantly influenced the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The certificates submitted were considered acknowledgments of participation and contributions rather than prizes or awards for excellence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The citations in other works were not about the Beneficiary and did not discuss his work’s merits or impact, failing to meet the criterion for published materials about him.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The articles and letters provided did not establish that the Beneficiary’s work had a significant impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The emails showed requests for the Beneficiary to review work but lacked evidence that he completed the reviews.
Supporting Documentation
Certificates of appreciation and commendation from various organizations.
Emails requesting participation in peer reviews.
Articles citing the Beneficiary’s work.
Letters of recommendation and support from colleagues and academic peers.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Beneficiary did not meet at least three of the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
The evidence provided did not establish the significant impact of the Beneficiary’s work or his standing at the top of his field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of the Beneficiary’s contributions and recognition in the field or explore other immigration classifications that may be more suitable.
