Date of Decision: November 30, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Maternal and Child Health Specialist
Field: Maternal and Child Health
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material: The Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion, providing sufficient evidence of published material about her and her work, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Participation as a Judge: The Director also found that the Petitioner met this criterion by participating as a judge of the work of others in the field, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Criteria Not Met:
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she performed in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations. The evidence included descriptions of her roles but lacked independent verification of the organization’s distinguished status or the significance of the Petitioner’s contributions, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Translation Issues:
The Director noted multiple instances of translation errors and inconsistencies in the record. For example, a translation of an article published in the Beijing Evening News used incorrect terms that cast doubt on the reliability of the translation. Additionally, reference letters and certificates contained discrepancies between the original documents and their translations, which reduced the evidentiary value of the translated material.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided sufficient evidence of published material about her in professional or major media, satisfying this criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a judge in academic and professional settings, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner did not establish her roles as leading or critical in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including letters of recommendation, articles, and evidence of her work. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner satisfied the criteria for published material and participation as a judge, the evidence provided did not establish her leading or critical roles in distinguished organizations. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Additionally, significant translation errors and discrepancies reduced the reliability of the evidence.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of her contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit her qualifications.
