Date of Decision: July 18, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Real Estate Analyst and Researcher
Field: Real Estate Analysis and Research
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts for journals and at conferences, such as the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (NAREIT).
Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored scholarly articles in publications, such as the Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not establish that his contributions, such as his involvement in drafting real estate codes or his role in conferences, were of major significance in the field. While his work was acknowledged within certain circles, it did not meet the threshold of major significance required by the criterion.
Other Criteria: The petitioner did not meet additional criteria necessary to fulfill the minimum of three required for the EB1 classification.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: No individual awards or prizes were submitted that would fulfill this criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: No significant published materials about the petitioner were provided.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s involvement in drafting real estate codes and participation in conferences did not demonstrate contributions of major significance. The letters of support did not provide specific examples of how his work influenced the field significantly.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served as a peer reviewer and judge at various real estate conferences, which was one of the criteria he met.
Membership in Associations: No evidence was provided that the petitioner was a member of associations that required outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored several scholarly articles, which fulfilled one of the criteria.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: The petitioner’s roles were acknowledged, but they did not establish that he performed in a leading or critical capacity for organizations with distinguished reputations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable to the petitioner’s field.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: No evidence was provided for this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable to the petitioner’s field.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included letters of support from colleagues and professionals in the field, evidence of peer review activities, and scholarly articles authored by the petitioner.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria. While he satisfied two criteria, the totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of individual achievements and acclaim within the field, focusing on personal awards, critical reviews, and documented contributions of major significance to strengthen future petitions.
