Date of Decision: MAY 26, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Legal Researcher
Field: China Legal Research
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media
The petitioner has submitted evidence showing authorship of scholarly articles, including a 2011 article published in a renowned journal.
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 petitioner claimed receipt of a scholarship as a nationally recognized award but failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating the scholarship’s recognition in the field. The evidence provided did not substantiate the petitioner’s claims about the scholarship’s prestige or selection criteria.
Evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought
The petitioner asserted his role as the chief editor of a book but did not provide supporting evidence or complete certified translations for foreign language materials.
Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field
The petitioner cited search queries, downloads, and citations of his articles but did not provide substantial evidence of their impact or significance in the field. Additionally, the petitioner’s participation in symposia and conferences was not supported by evidence of the impact of his work.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner’s receipt of a scholarship was not recognized as a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field.
- Key Quotes or References: “Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner authored scholarly articles but did not provide sufficient evidence of their impact on the field.
- Key Quotes or References: “Publication and presentations, which are evidence of the dissemination of the petitioner’s work, are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they are of ‘major significance’ in the field.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner’s work did not demonstrate the level of impact or significance required.
- Key Quotes or References: “The record lacks sufficient evidence showing that the impact of the petitioner’s work is at a level consistent with contributions of major significance in the field.”
Supporting Documentation
- Scholarship Award Letters: Summarized details and lack of evidence supporting the petitioner’s claims about the scholarship’s prestige and selection criteria.
- Published Articles: Titles and brief summaries of articles, emphasizing the lack of demonstrated impact on the field.
- Conference Participation: Evidence of participation in symposia and conferences, without evidence of the impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not satisfy the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) and failed to demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence provided did not meet the criteria for extraordinary ability as defined by USCIS regulations.
Next Steps: The petitioner may file a motion to reconsider or reopen the proceeding within 33 days of the date of this decision, using Form I-290B.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
