Date of Decision: APR 14, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Professor of Communications
Field: Communications
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner served as an editor for academic journals and as a thesis advisor and evaluator.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored several scholarly articles published in professional or major trade publications.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in Associations: The petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
- Published Material About the Petitioner: The articles provided did not qualify as professional or major trade publications or major media.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The evidence submitted did not show that the petitioner’s work had a major impact on the field.
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not establish that the organizations he worked for had a distinguished reputation.
- Commercial Success in Performing Arts: This criterion was not applicable to the petitioner’s field of expertise.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The petitioner did not claim to have won any lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The articles provided did not meet the criterion of being published in professional or major trade publications or major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The evidence did not show that the petitioner’s contributions had a major impact on the field of communications.
Participation as a Judge:
- The petitioner served as an editor for academic journals and as a thesis advisor and evaluator.
Membership in Associations:
- The petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner authored several scholarly articles published in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role:
- The petitioner did not establish that the organizations he worked for had a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable to the petitioner’s field.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- The petitioner did not submit evidence of high salary or remuneration.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable to the petitioner’s field.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from Colleagues and Students: Provided general praise but lacked specific examples of the petitioner’s contributions having a major impact on the field.
- Membership Certificates and Letters: Failed to demonstrate that the memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
- Articles Authored by the Petitioner: Several scholarly articles were provided but lacked evidence of major impact or citations.
- Editorial Roles: Evidence of serving as an editor for academic journals was provided, showing participation in judging the work of others.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
- The petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements, failing to provide evidence that satisfied at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of his field.
Next Steps:
- The petitioner may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen within 33 days of the date of the decision if they believe the AAO incorrectly applied the law or if they have new facts to present.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
