Date of Decision: August 5, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Orthopedic Surgeon
Field: Orthopedics and Traumatology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner provided evidence that he has judged the work of others in his field under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Criteria Not Met:
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner submitted letters indicating his roles as the director of the knee surgery unit at Central Hospital and as a professor at its affiliated medical school, as well as the head of the knee surgery unit at Home Clinic. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these roles were leading or critical to the hospitals or institutions overall, nor did it establish that these organizations have distinguished reputations.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner provided a statement of earnings, but the figures were not adequately explained or corroborated with supporting documents. The comparison to other salaries in the field was insufficient, and new articles provided did not include occupational wage data or salary survey results for orthopedic surgeons in Venezuela.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: Not applicable.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: Not applicable.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that he judged the work of others in his field, fulfilling one of the required criteria.
Membership in Associations: Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Not applicable.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Despite holding leadership positions, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that these roles were critical to the institutions’ overall operations or reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner’s claim of high remuneration was found to be based on incomplete and uncorroborated figures, failing to meet the regulatory criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Letters from Colleagues: Letters from colleagues highlighted the Petitioner’s roles in various medical institutions but did not provide sufficient evidence of the significance or impact of these roles.
Statement of Earnings: A statement of earnings was provided but lacked the necessary supporting documents to verify the figures and their relevance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider and the motion to reopen were both dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not establish that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Additionally, the new evidence provided did not overcome the deficiencies noted in the previous decision.
Next Steps: The Petitioner should consider gathering more comprehensive and corroborative evidence that clearly demonstrates how his roles were critical to his institutions and how his salary compares favorably to others in his field.
