Date of Decision: September 30, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Printing Engineer
Field: Flexographic Technology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material about the Individual: The petitioner provided an article about her work in Peninsula City News, which was recognized as satisfying the criterion of published material about her.
Criteria Not Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner did not provide sufficient circulation data to demonstrate that her articles appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Additionally, one article was credited to another author, and the submitted evidence did not establish the major significance of the publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner claimed contributions through patents and standards, but did not provide sufficient objective evidence to demonstrate the major significance of these contributions. The patents themselves did not contain evidence of their significance, and letters from close associates without further corroboration were insufficient.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria, thus this criterion was reserved and not detailed further.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable as no major, internationally recognized award was provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided an article in Peninsula City News which was accepted. However, additional materials provided did not meet the evidentiary standards due to lack of circulation data and proper attribution.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed several contributions through patents and technical standards. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate widespread recognition or significant impact on the field. The support letters lacked corroboration and did not establish a broader industry consensus.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner did not contest the Director’s conclusions regarding judging, and therefore this criterion was considered abandoned.
Membership in Associations:
Not discussed in the appeal review.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner submitted translated copies of six articles, but failed to provide circulation data or evidence that the publications were professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Due to the petitioner not meeting at least three criteria, this criterion was reserved and not further discussed.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not contest the Director’s conclusions regarding remuneration, and therefore this criterion was considered abandoned.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Patents and Technical Standards: The petitioner provided documentation of patents and technical standards, but the significance and impact of these contributions were not adequately established.
Articles and Publications: Six articles were submitted, but lacked circulation data and proper attribution, with one article credited to another author.
Letters of Support: Letters from associates were provided but lacked broader industry corroboration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documentation that satisfies at least three of the ten criteria. The provided evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or recognition required for the classification sought. The record indicated that the petitioner had success in the printing industry but did not show recognition beyond a specific region in Southeast China.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider providing additional evidence or addressing the deficiencies identified in the decision if seeking further review or reapplication.
