Date of Decision: April 23, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Religious Faith Writer
Field: Charitable and Humanitarian Works
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish that he authored scholarly articles. The record reflects that the Petitioner authored two books, demonstrating the scholarly nature of his publications.
Criteria Not Met
One-Time Achievement: The Petitioner claimed to have received a major, internationally recognized award, the medal conferred by Pope. However, the record did not demonstrate that the award is recognized by international media, the general public, or garners attention comparable to other globally recognized awards. The evidence did not establish that this award is on par with other examples like the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzer Prize.
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner claimed that his medal should be considered a lesser internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. However, the record did not establish that the medal is awarded for excellence in the Petitioner’s field or in any particular field. The evidence provided, including letters and Wikipedia entries, did not sufficiently demonstrate the criteria used for the award or its significance in the field.
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner provided several articles but did not submit sufficient evidence to meet this criterion. The articles did not consistently include the title, date, or author, and some were not primarily about the Petitioner or his work. Additionally, the publications were not established as major media. The Petitioner did not provide probative evidence that the cited sources are considered major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not contest the Director’s determination that he did not satisfy this criterion, and therefore it was deemed waived. The letters provided lacked specific details on the impact and significance of the Petitioner’s contributions.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner did not contest the Director’s determination that he did not satisfy this criterion, and therefore it was deemed waived. The evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the organizations’ distinguished reputations or the critical nature of the Petitioner’s roles.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that he personally received nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about him were in major trade or professional publications or other major media. The articles provided did not consistently meet the required standards.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters lacked specific details on how the contributions significantly influenced the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, satisfying this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he performed leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition for the individual.
Articles and Publications: Included articles that did not consistently meet the standards for major media coverage or were not primarily about the Petitioner.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met one criterion but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
