Date of Decision: May 27, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Mathematics Educator
Field: Mathematics Education
Nationality: Chinese
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a judge of the work of others in his field: The Petitioner served on the judging committee of the World Math Competition (China trials).
Authorship of scholarly articles: The Petitioner has co-authored and edited mathematics textbooks and other educational publications.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes: The Petitioner received the “China Mathematical Olympiad First Class Coach” title and the “Gold Award for Coaching” at the World Olympics Mathematics Competition (China), but the evidence did not demonstrate these were nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence.
Published material in professional publications or major media: The articles submitted about the Petitioner were not shown to be published in major media or professional publications with high circulation.
Original contributions of major significance: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his contributions were recognized as having a major impact on the field of mathematics education.
High salary or other high remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide comparative salary information relevant to his occupation and geographic location in China.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not meet the criterion for lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. The evidence provided did not demonstrate that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The articles provided were not shown to be published in major media or professional publications with high circulation. Assertions that the publications were sections of major newspapers were not substantiated with evidence.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The letters and evidence submitted did not establish that the Petitioner’s work had a significant impact or influence on the field of mathematics education. The contributions were not shown to be recognized as original and of major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner met this criterion by serving on the judging committee of the World Math Competition (China trials).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner met this criterion by co-authoring and editing mathematics textbooks and other educational publications.
High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner did not provide relevant comparative salary information. The evidence submitted on appeal was not accepted because the Petitioner had an opportunity to provide this information earlier and did not.
Supporting Documentation
Certificates and letters confirming the Petitioner’s participation as a judge and his authorship of scholarly articles.
Certificates and letters related to the Petitioner’s awards, which were not deemed sufficient to meet the criterion for lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering additional, robust evidence of nationally or internationally recognized awards, contributions of major significance, and published material in major media or professional publications if reapplying for this classification.
