Date of Decision: NOV 29, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Legal Scholar
Field: Digital Law
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Receipt of Lesser Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner provided evidence showing that he received a nationally recognized award for innovation in his field in 2010. This meets the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner contended that he met this criterion based on his membership and roles within a specific organization. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that membership in this organization required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner provided evidence of his work in digital advocacy, including authorship of a pioneering book. Despite this, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions had a major impact on the field. Letters of support did not show that the Petitioner’s work was widely implemented or significantly influenced the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner held roles as vice president and chairman of a specific commission. However, the evidence did not demonstrate how these roles were leading or critical to the success of the organization. The documentation did not provide detailed information on how the Petitioner’s roles were critical to the overall success of the organization, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Findings: The Petitioner demonstrated that he received a nationally recognized award for innovation in his field, meeting this criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Findings: The Petitioner’s contributions in digital law, while significant, did not demonstrate the required level of major significance. The letters and evidence provided did not show widespread implementation or substantial impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Membership in Associations:
Findings: The memberships provided did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, failing this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Findings: The Petitioner’s roles in organizations were not demonstrated to be leading or critical to their success.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Reviews: Various articles and reviews about the Petitioner’s work in digital law.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts supporting the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions to the field of digital law.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time major achievement or at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence presented did not establish the Petitioner’s sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of his contributions’ significance and potentially reapplying if additional substantial evidence can be presented. Consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance and preparation may also be beneficial.
