Date of Decision: December 22, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Mathematics Professor
Field: Education
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored an article published in a professional publication, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The petitioner submitted a certificate indicating receipt of a student scholarship and other certificates for completing professional development training. However, these were not established as nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in her field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner provided her Ph.D. dissertation, publications, presentations, and citation evidence. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that her work had substantially influenced her field or that her instructional method had been widely utilized, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner claimed a leading role as a full-time instructor at a community college. However, the evidence did not establish where her role fit within the overall hierarchy of the institution or that her course instruction contributed substantially to the college’s success or standing, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner provided her employment contract and faculty pay scale. However, the salary information was limited to faculty at her college and did not show that she commanded a high salary relative to others in her field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in her field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable in this case.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s work, while noted, did not demonstrate substantial influence or major significance in the field of mathematics.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable in this case.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that her membership in an association required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored an article published in a professional publication, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that she performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner’s salary was not demonstrated to be high in relation to others in her field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Certificates and Awards: Documentation of the petitioner’s student scholarship and professional development certificates.
- Articles and Publications: An article authored by the petitioner published in a professional publication.
- Letters of Support: Letters from colleagues and supervisors, but lacking specific examples of significant impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required criteria for EB-1 classification. Despite notable achievements, the petitioner did not establish the level of extraordinary ability required. The evidence provided did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance or a leading or critical role in organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Next Steps: The petitioner should consider reapplying with additional evidence or exploring other visa categories that may better suit her qualifications and achievements.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
