Date of Decision: May 18, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Medical Doctor
Field: Medical Malpractice Litigation
Nationality: Brazilian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), which entails judging the work of others, through his work with the Conselho Regional de Medicina do Distrito Federal (CRM-DF).
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in Associations: The petitioner documented his membership in CRM-DF and the Associação Brasileira de Medicina Legal e Perícias Médicas do Distrito Federal (ABMLPM-DF), but these organizations do not require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts.
- Published Material About the Petitioner: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s involvement in litigation and testimony related to the passage of Brazilian legislation on disability benefits for monocular vision did not demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance.
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not demonstrate that the organizations for which he performed in leading or critical roles have distinguished reputations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence of published material in professional or major trade publications relating to his work.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: Although the petitioner contributed to the passage of legislation in Brazil, the record did not show that his contributions were of major significance in his field.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner satisfied this criterion through his work with CRM-DF, which entails judging the work of others.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner’s memberships in CRM-DF and ABMLPM-DF did not meet the criteria for outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Not applicable.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: The petitioner did not demonstrate that the organizations he led have distinguished reputations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- CRM-DF Membership: Evidence of participation in CRM-DF as a judge of the work of others.
- ABMLPM-DF Membership: Documentation of membership but insufficient evidence of outstanding achievements required for membership.
- Legislation Contribution: Documentation of involvement in the passage of Brazilian legislation on disability benefits for monocular vision.
- Published Materials: Insufficient evidence of published material about the petitioner in major media.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that satisfy at least three of the ten criteria. The petitioner’s contributions, while significant, did not demonstrate the level of major significance or recognition required for the classification sought. The organizations in which the petitioner performed leading roles were not shown to have distinguished reputations, and the petitioner’s memberships did not meet the criteria for outstanding achievements.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence or documentation that meets the required criteria for extraordinary ability classification if considering re-application.
