Date of Decision: September 24, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physiatrist Specialist
Field: Medical Science
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material: The Petitioner provided published material about himself, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Judging: The Petitioner served as a judge of the work of others in the field, fulfilling the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner performed a leading or critical role in organizations or establishments, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Criteria Not Met:
The Director determined that despite meeting four criteria, the Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided evidence of published materials discussing his work, satisfying one of the required criteria.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
No sufficient evidence provided to prove the Petitioner’s contributions were of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a judge in the field, which met the criteria.
Membership in Associations:
No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, meeting the criterion but lacking evidence of major significance.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner played a leading or critical role in organizations, meeting one of the required criteria.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including published materials, evidence of judging, scholarly articles, and roles in organizations. However, these did not collectively establish sustained national or international acclaim.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Remanded
Reasoning: The Director incorrectly dismissed the motions as untimely filed. The Petitioner met the filing deadline, and the matter was remanded for further consideration of the totality of the evidence.
Next Steps: The Director will reconsider all arguments and documentation in the record to determine if the Petitioner established sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of his field.
