Date of Decision: April 18, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Lawyer
Field: Law
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None
Criteria Not Met:
Authorship of scholarly articles: The Petitioner provided a “Member News” announcement and a doctoral dissertation published after the petition’s filing date, which did not meet the required criteria of having scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications at the time of filing.
Leading or critical role: The Petitioner’s role as an “Additional Representative” was not established as leading or critical, lacking evidence of the duties performed and their impact on the organization.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
None
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s “Member News” announcement was not considered a scholarly article.
- Key quotes or references: “Generally, scholarly articles are written by and for experts in a particular field of study, are peer-reviewed, and contain references to sources used in the articles. In this instance, the record lacks evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner’s ‘Member News’ announcement was peer-reviewed, contains any references to sources, or otherwise equates to a ‘scholarly’ article.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
None
Participation as a Judge:
None
Membership in Associations:
None
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s scholarly article was published after the petition’s filing date, not satisfying the regulatory criterion.
- Key quotes or references: “Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. Without evidence showing that the Petitioner’s dissertation was in a professional publication or other form of major media as of [the filing date], he has not established eligibility for this criterion at the time of filing.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his role as an “Additional Representative” was leading or critical.
- Key quotes or references: “The record did not include details of the duties he actually performed as an additional representative or demonstrate the impact that his work had on the association, to show that his role was a critical one.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
None
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
None
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
None
Supporting Documentation
- Member News Announcement: Provided but not considered a scholarly article.
- Doctoral Dissertation: Published after the filing date, thus not meeting the requirement.
- Letters from Executive Director: Provided but did not demonstrate the Petitioner’s role as leading or critical.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen is denied, and the motion to reconsider is denied.
Reasoning: The Petitioner has not met the burden of proof required to establish eligibility for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps: Recommendations or next steps for the petitioner are not provided in the document.
