Date of Decision: May 27, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Journalist and Author
Field: Journalism and Literature
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
None of the criteria were met as per the final decision.
Criteria Not Met
One-Time Achievement: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of a one-time achievement that could be considered equivalent to an internationally recognized award.
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field.
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about him were in major trade or professional publications or other major media. The articles submitted did not focus primarily on the Petitioner or demonstrate that the publications are considered major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed original contributions of major significance in journalism and literature. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the major significance of these contributions. The letters provided praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked specific, detailed information on how his contributions significantly impacted the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner provided evidence of authorship of books and articles, but the evidence did not demonstrate that these publications are considered scholarly articles written for learned persons in the field.
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. The memberships cited were based on participation rather than outstanding achievements.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner claimed leading roles in various organizations, but the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that these organizations have distinguished reputations or that his roles were critical to their success. The letters and documentation provided did not offer specific, detailed information explaining how the Petitioner’s role was critical.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that he personally received nationally or internationally recognized awards. The provided evidence did not demonstrate the awards’ recognition at the required level.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about him were in major trade or professional publications or other major media. The articles provided did not focus primarily on the Petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters lacked specific details on the impact and significance of his contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he participated as a judge in a capacity that would meet the required standards.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored books and articles, but the evidence did not demonstrate that these publications are considered scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner 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.
Analysis of Director’s Decision on Motion
The Director initially concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the required criteria and denied the petition. The Petitioner’s appeal was summarily dismissed because it did not include a statement in support of the appeal that specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the Director’s decision. Additionally, the Petitioner did not submit a brief or additional evidence within the given time frame. The matter was then reviewed under a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. However, the Petitioner did not provide new facts or evidence to support the motion, nor did he demonstrate that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen is dismissed. The motion to reconsider is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner 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 he 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. The motions did not establish that the previous decision was incorrect based on the application of law or policy, nor did they provide new evidence to meet the criteria.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification. The Petitioner should ensure that all evidence clearly demonstrates the required levels of recognition and impact in his field.
