Date of Decision: NOV 16, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Professor
Field: Law
Nationality: [Not provided in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional journals.
Criteria Not Met:
Receipt of Lesser Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner submitted evidence of receiving a “Chinese Government Scholarship” from the China Scholarship Council (CSC). However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that this scholarship is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. The documentation provided did not establish that the scholarship is equivalent to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence.
Participation as a Judge: While the Petitioner provided letters indicating appointments to review dissertations and journal articles, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate actual participation in the review process. The documentation lacked specific details and did not show substantial involvement in judging the work of others.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed to have made significant contributions through her research and involvement in drafting legal codes. However, the evidence provided did not demonstrate the major significance of these contributions. The letters and documents submitted did not provide specific examples or detailed information on how her contributions had a substantial impact on the field.
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner held positions on committees and in organizations, but the evidence did not demonstrate that her roles were leading or critical to the success of these organizations. The documentation did not show how her roles contributed significantly to the outcomes of the organizations’ activities.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner’s scholarship did not demonstrate national or international recognition for excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable in this case.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions were not shown to have a major impact on the field. The documentation did not provide sufficient details to demonstrate significant influence or widespread implementation.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner’s evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate actual participation in judging the work of others.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable in this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional journals, fulfilling this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner’s roles in committees and organizations were not demonstrated to be leading or critical to their success.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Reviews: Various articles and reviews about the Petitioner’s scholarly work.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts supporting the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions to the field of law.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time major achievement or at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence presented did not establish the Petitioner’s sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of her field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of her contributions’ significance and potentially reapplying if additional substantial evidence can be presented. Consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance and preparation may also be beneficial.
