Date of Decision: January 6, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher in Special Education
Field: Education
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner met this criterion by serving as a reviewer for journals. The evidence demonstrated the Petitioner’s participation in evaluating the work of others in her field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner met this criterion by authoring scholarly articles in professional publications. The evidence showed that the Petitioner had published articles in recognized journals in her field.
Criteria Not Met
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed original contributions of major significance in her field, supported by citations to her work and letters from colleagues and experts. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance. The citations and letters lacked specific, detailed information on how the Petitioner’s contributions significantly impacted the field. The documentation did not establish that the Petitioner’s work had been widely implemented or had remarkably impacted or influenced the field.
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in her field.
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner provided several articles, but these did not meet the requirements for professional or major trade publications or other major media. The articles did not focus primarily on the Petitioner or demonstrate that the publications qualify as major media.
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. The memberships cited were based on participation and completion of courses rather than outstanding achievements.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that she commanded a high salary or remuneration relative to others in her field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that she personally received nationally or internationally recognized awards. The evidence provided did not demonstrate the awards’ recognition at the required level.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about her were in major trade or professional publications or other major media. The articles provided did not focus primarily on the Petitioner.
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 and citations lacked specific details on the impact and significance of her contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a reviewer for scholarly journals, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles in reputable professional journals, satisfying this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that she 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.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met two criteria 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 she is among the small percentage at the very top of her 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. The Petitioner should ensure that all evidence clearly demonstrates the required levels of recognition and impact in her field.
