Date of Decision: April 29, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Journalist
Field: Media and Journalism
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Leading or Critical Role
The petitioner demonstrated that he played a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation, fulfilling this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Published Material About the Petitioner
The petitioner claimed to meet this criterion based on articles from various sources, but did not demonstrate the authors of the articles, and some articles did not focus on the petitioner’s work in his field.
Criterion 2: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance to the field of media and journalism. Letters provided praised his work but did not show significant impact on the field.
Criterion 3: Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards
The petitioner claimed eligibility based on a prize awarded to his publication rather than to him individually. The petitioner did not demonstrate that the prize was nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
Criterion 4: Membership in Associations
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his memberships in associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Criterion 5: High Salary or Remuneration
The petitioner did not demonstrate that his salary or remuneration was high relative to others in the field of journalism and media.
Criterion 6: Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of commercial successes comparable to the criterion, nor did he demonstrate that his work resulted in significant increases in circulation or site visits.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner claimed an award received by his publication but did not demonstrate its significance or that it was awarded to him individually.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted several articles, but they did not sufficiently focus on his work or were not authored as required by regulations.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions, such as his website and marketing campaigns, were not shown to have significant impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge: Not applicable
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of memberships requiring outstanding achievements judged by experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Not applicable
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated that he held a leading or critical role within organizations of distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that his salary was high compared to others in the same field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Publications: Various articles and publications about the petitioner’s work.
Letters of Reference: Letters from colleagues and associates detailing the petitioner’s contributions and roles.
Membership Information: Documentation of memberships in various associations.
Employment Records: Documentation of the petitioner’s leading roles in different organizations.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. The evidence submitted did not establish national or international recognition of his achievements or demonstrate major contributions to the field of journalism and media. The petitioner did not show that his professional accomplishments placed him among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on awards with national or international recognition, significant contributions, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. Exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
