Date of Decision: December 16, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Field of Expertise: Poetry
Petitioner Information
Profession: Poet
Field: Poetry
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Awards: The Petitioner fulfilled the criterion for awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) by demonstrating receipt of several poetry awards.
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner served as a judge for poetry contests, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material: The Petitioner did not sufficiently meet the criterion for published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). While the Petitioner claimed extensive press and media coverage, the evidence provided included translations of website postings and self-promotional material rather than established professional or major trade publications.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner demonstrated receipt of awards, but they were primarily for youth and student categories, limiting their significance in demonstrating extraordinary ability.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided articles and translations from websites, but did not establish these as major media. The provided translations lacked titles, dates, and authors, which are required by regulation. Additionally, some translations contained inconsistencies and personal commentary, further reducing their reliability.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate major contributions to the field of poetry.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a judge in poetry contests, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner claimed membership in professional associations but did not establish that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner did not establish leading or critical roles in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including letters of recommendation, translations of articles, and evidence of judging activities. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner provided documentation related to awards and participation as a judge, the evidence was insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or his standing at the very top of his field. Significant translation errors and discrepancies further reduced the reliability of the evidence.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of his contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit his qualifications.
