Date of Decision: February 26, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Journalist
Field: Journalism
Nationality: [Not specified in the provided text]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a judge of the work of others: The Petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of others, which fulfills one of the required criteria.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards: The Petitioner did not establish that the awards received were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of journalism. The awards lacked sufficient evidence of their significance and recognition.
Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that membership in the organizations mentioned required outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts.
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media: The Petitioner submitted articles that did not meet the criteria of being about her and published in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Authorship of scholarly articles: The Petitioner’s articles were not scholarly and were intended for a general readership rather than learned persons in the field.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that her role was leading or critical to the success of the organization she worked for.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to show that her salary was high relative to others in her field.
Commercial successes in the performing arts: The Petitioner did not demonstrate commercial success in the performing arts, which is not applicable to her field of journalism.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner received awards, but they were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of journalism.
Key quotes or references: “The evidence submitted by the Petitioner does not show that the Beneficiary received the awards as claimed.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner provided articles that were not about her or published in major media.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of others, fulfilling this criterion.”
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that her memberships required outstanding achievements.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner did not demonstrate that ASME’s member requirement of professional experience rises to the level of outstanding achievements.”
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s articles were not scholarly.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not established her authorship of scholarly articles.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show her role was leading or critical.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not established that she satisfies the requirements of this criterion.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show her salary was high relative to others in her field.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary commanded a high salary in relation to other SAP consultants.”
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Awards Documentation: Evidence of organizational awards, but not individual recognition.
Membership Documentation: ASME membership based on professional experience.
Judging Activities: Participation in a forum, not as a judge.
Income Documentation: Inadequate comparison of salary with appropriate job category.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that she met the required three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The evidence provided did not support the level of recognition and influence required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Next Steps
Recommendations: The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and independent evidence of her sustained impact and significance within the field, securing credible letters of support, and reapplying with a stronger case.
