Date of Decision: May 7, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Lawyer
Field: Law
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner satisfied the criterion related to the authorship of scholarly articles. However, no specific details about the articles were mentioned in the decision.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the awards mentioned were recognized outside the awarding entities’ promotional materials.
Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements: The petitioner could not show that his membership in the Bar Association’s Assembly required outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts.
Published material about the individual: The review reserved a detailed discussion on this criterion but noted it would not affect the outcome.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations: The petitioner did not prove his roles in various organizations were leading or critical.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner claimed to have received several awards, including a major internationally recognized award, but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their national or international recognition.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
There was a lack of conclusive evidence about published materials discussing the petitioner in major media or professional publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
No specific original contributions of major significance were detailed in the decision.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable or not mentioned in the document.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s membership in the Bar Association’s Assembly was noted but did not meet the evidentiary requirements due to the lack of a national or international recognition standard.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner met this criterion, indicating he has authored scholarly articles, although specific articles and their impact were not detailed.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s roles in organizations were determined not to be leading or critical.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable or not mentioned in the document.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable or not mentioned in the document.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable or not mentioned in the document.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Recommendation: Several letters were provided, praising the petitioner’s work but not qualifying as prizes or awards.
Agreements and Contracts: Documents showing the petitioner’s roles in various projects, which were deemed not to meet the leading or critical role criterion.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirements of either a one-time achievement or documents satisfying at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Furthermore, the final merits determination concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim nor was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial and corroborative evidence of extraordinary ability and reapplying or seeking alternative visa classifications. Recommendations include focusing on acquiring more widely recognized awards and publishing material about his achievements in major media outlets.
