Date of Decision: May 29, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Philanthropist
Field: Charitable and Humanitarian Works
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner met this criterion by serving as a judge for two speech contests.
Criteria Not Met
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner submitted evidence of a news segment from China Central Television (CCTV) and an article from China Youth Daily. However, the evidence provided did not include the required author’s name, and the material was not primarily about the Petitioner. Additionally, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that CCTV or China Youth Daily are considered major media. The submitted materials focused on the Petitioner’s organization and projects rather than the Petitioner herself.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed original contributions of major significance, supported by letters and media coverage. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the significance and impact of these contributions. The letters praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked specific details on how her contributions have been widely implemented or significantly impacted the field. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the contributions were original to her or that they were of major significance.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that she performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation. The letters and documentation provided did not offer specific, detailed information explaining how the Petitioner’s role was critical to the success of these organizations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that she personally received nationally or internationally recognized awards. The awards cited were for projects or organizations and did not name the Petitioner as the recipient.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about her were in major trade or professional publications or other major media. The articles provided did not consistently meet the required standards.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters and citations lacked specific details on the impact and significance of the Petitioner’s contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a judge for speech contests, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that she performed leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition for the individual.
Articles and Publications: Included articles that did not consistently meet the standards for major media coverage or were not primarily about the Petitioner.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met one criterion but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
