Date of Decision: January 28, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Polygraph Examiner, Researcher, and Instructor
Field: Polygraph Examination
Nationality: Russian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner provided copies of articles from several different publications, most of which qualify as scholarly. This criterion was met as the petitioner demonstrated authorship in professional or major trade publications.
Criterion 2: Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others
The petitioner served as a member of the American Polygraph Association’s committee, reviewing nominations for the APA Annual Awards and choosing the best nominee. This criterion was met as the petitioner demonstrated participation as a judge in his field.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Receipt of Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards
The petitioner received several awards, including the [Award Name] from the American Polygraph Association, but did not provide sufficient evidence that these awards were recognized nationally or internationally for excellence in the field.
Criterion 2: Membership in Associations
The petitioner is a member of the American Polygraph Association (APA) and the British and European Polygraph Association (BEPA). However, the membership requirements for these associations do not meet the standard of requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Criterion 3: Published Material About the Petitioner
The petitioner submitted articles from various sources, but many lacked the required author credits or were published in media not established as major or professional trade publications.
Criterion 4: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner claimed original contributions such as introducing American standards of polygraphy to Russia and creating international partnerships with other polygraph associations. However, the provided evidence did not demonstrate the major significance or widespread impact of these contributions in the field.
Criterion 5: Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations
The petitioner claimed roles such as [Role] for the National Polygraph Association (NPA) of Russia, but did not provide sufficient evidence that these roles were leading or critical to the success of distinguished organizations.
Criterion 6: High Salary or Remuneration
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in the field, such as tax documents or pay receipts.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the awards received were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted articles mentioning him, but the evidence did not meet the criterion for published material in professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed contributions to the field of polygraphy, but the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate their major significance or widespread implementation.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided evidence of serving as a judge for the American Polygraph Association’s awards, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner provided evidence of membership in associations, but these did not meet the standard of requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that he held leading or critical roles within distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Publications: Various articles and publications about the petitioner’s work.
Letters of Reference: Letters from colleagues and associates detailing the petitioner’s contributions and roles.
Award Documentation: Information about the awards claimed by the petitioner.
Membership Information: Documentation of memberships in various associations.
Salary Information: Documentation of the petitioner’s salary compared to industry standards.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. While the petitioner demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles and participation as a judge, the evidence provided did not establish the major significance of his contributions to the field of polygraph examination. The petitioner did not show that his professional accomplishments placed him among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Additionally, the petitioner did not provide evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on contributions with demonstrated major significance, awards with national or international recognition, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. Exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
