Date of Decision: DEC. 16, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher, Designer, and Developer of Instructional Technology
Field: Instructional Technology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner satisfied this criterion by providing evidence that she has peer-reviewed articles for various academic journals.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner met this criterion by authoring eighteen scholarly articles published in academic journals.
Criteria Not Met
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not meet this criterion. While she provided evidence of citations and publications, the Director concluded that these did not demonstrate contributions of major significance in the field. The total number of citations and the impact of her work were not sufficiently established as significant within the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
Not applicable.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner submitted letters of support and evidence of citations for her work. However, the Director found that the evidence did not demonstrate contributions of major significance. The petitioner’s citation record, while probative, did not place her contributions in the context of the field’s standards.
Participation as a Judge
The petitioner provided evidence that she has peer-reviewed articles for academic journals, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner authored eighteen scholarly articles published in academic journals, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed
Not applicable.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Peer-Reviewed Articles: Evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others in the same field.
- Scholarly Articles: Copies and citations of the petitioner’s eighteen scholarly articles.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions have been recognized as significant in her field. Furthermore, the petitioner did not provide sufficient context to establish the impact of her work relative to other significant contributions in the field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of her contributions and their impact on the field, possibly including more detailed records of citations and expert testimonials that clearly articulate the significance of her work.
