Date of Decision: JAN. 5, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Juris Doctorate Tax Consultant
Field: Business
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
(iv) Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner met the requirements by providing evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others in their field.
(vi) Authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner satisfied this criterion by providing evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Criteria Not Met:
(i) Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards:
The petitioner provided evidence of several awards, including the “Order of Barristers National Award” and the “President’s Award Kenya.” However, these awards were not demonstrated to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
(ii) Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements:
The petitioner claimed membership in the “Order of Barristers National Honor Society” and “Pi Sigma Alpha,” both of which were based on student achievements rather than professional accomplishments judged by recognized experts.
(iii) Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or other major media:
The petitioner submitted articles from a law school website, a law firm website, and Court News Ohio, none of which were established as major trade or professional media.
(v) Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner cited an article published in the Immigration and Human Rights Law Review. However, the evidence did not demonstrate major significance or impact on the field.
(viii) Leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation:
The petitioner cited her role at HRQ. The evidence did not establish that HRQ is an organization with a distinguished reputation or that the petitioner’s role was significantly important to its outcomes.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner did not provide documentation of any recognized awards or prizes that met the criteria for national or international recognition.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings:
The articles provided did not meet the standards for major trade publications or major media, nor did they contain sufficient details such as titles, dates, and authors.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings:
The contributions claimed by the petitioner were not substantiated as being of major significance to their field. The letters provided did not adequately demonstrate the significant impact of the petitioner’s work on the industry as a whole.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner provided evidence of participation as a judge in their field, fulfilling this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that her memberships in associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner provided evidence of one scholarly article, but the regulation requires multiple articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that they held a leading or critical role in organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that their salary was significantly high in relation to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Judging Participation:
Evidence of the petitioner’s participation as a judge in their field. - Leading Role:
Documentation of the petitioner’s leading role in distinguished entities. - Published Articles:
Articles provided did not establish publication in major trade or professional media. - Award Certificates:
Certificates from various music competitions were provided, but they did not demonstrate national or international recognition. - Expert Letters:
Letters from experts claimed contributions but lacked detailed evidence of major significance. - Salary Comparison:
Inadequate comparison to similar roles in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that fulfill at least three of the ten lesser criteria. The totality of the material provided did not support a conclusion that the petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Next Steps:
It is recommended that the petitioner consider alternative visa classifications or provide additional evidence addressing the deficiencies noted in the appeal decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here.
