Date of Decision: March 11, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Rhetorical Linguist
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 served as a judge of theses and dissertations written by graduate students at the university level. This role demonstrated participation in judging the work of others in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored a Ph.D. dissertation and other scholarly papers that meet the criteria for authorship of scholarly articles. The evidence included her dissertation published in a professional digital library and two additional scholarly papers.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner submitted evidence of receiving the Entrepreneur Education award from the Brazilian Service for Support to Micro and Small Enterprises (SEBRAE). However, the record included conflicting evidence about the status and scope of the award, indicating it was presented at the state or local level rather than nationally recognized. Additionally, articles about the award originated from the websites of the institutions that received the awards, not extending recognition beyond the receiving organization.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner provided letters from professors and colleagues that praised her skills and accomplishments but did not establish that she played a leading or critical role at her institution. The letters described her relationship with students and contributions to linguistics research but did not demonstrate significant importance to the institution’s activities. Her own statement about spearheading the growth of the linguistics education program lacked sufficient detail and support.
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.
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.
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: The Petitioner served as a judge for theses and dissertations, 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 scholarly articles, including her Ph.D. dissertation, 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.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition for the individual.
Articles and Publications: Included articles that did not 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 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 the 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.
