Date of Decision: March 27, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Journalist
Field: Journalism
Nationality: Russian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Documentation of the alien’s display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases: The petitioner displayed her book through a presentation at the New York Public Library.
Criteria Not Met:
Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor: The Director concluded that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence showing that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence.
Documentation of the alien’s membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts: The petitioner did not demonstrate that the associations required outstanding achievements for membership judged by recognized experts.
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material meeting the necessary elements of this criterion, including authors, dates, and demonstrating major media status.
Evidence of the alien’s original contributions of major significance in the field: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her contributions have been widely implemented or significantly impacted the field of journalism.
Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications, or other major media: The petitioner’s articles were journalistic rather than scholarly, and her book did not qualify as a professional or major trade publication.
Evidence of the alien’s performance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation: The petitioner did not demonstrate that her role was leading or critical, nor did she provide evidence of the distinguished reputation of the organizations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide evidence showing that her awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in journalism.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner did not meet the criteria for published materials about her in major media due to lack of necessary elements such as authors, dates, and demonstration of major media status.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of her contributions significantly impacting the field of journalism.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that her membership in associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner’s articles were journalistic and did not qualify as scholarly articles. Her book did not meet the criteria for professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that she performed a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner met this criterion through the display of her book at the New York Public Library.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted various letters of recommendation, screenshots of websites, and translations of interviews and articles. However, these documents did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the required criteria for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence or seeking legal advice for reapplication or further appeals.
