Date of Decision: MAY 26, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Scientist
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: The petitioner provided general claims but did not submit sufficient specific evidence.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate original contributions.
- Participation as a Judge: Insufficient evidence was provided for judging the work of others in the field.
- Membership in Associations: Membership alone was not enough without evidence of significant achievements.
- Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner provided job offer letters, but they did not establish a high salary in relation to others in the field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner failed to provide documentation of any awards or prizes.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Insufficient evidence of significant scholarly articles was provided.
- Leading or Critical Role Performed: The evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate a leading or critical role.
- Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable to this case.
- Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable to this case.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner did not provide documentation of awards or prizes.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner made general claims but failed to provide specific evidence.
- Key quotes or references: “The Service erred in denying this petition by not considering the voluminous evidence submitted in this matter.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: Insufficient demonstration of original contributions.
- Key quotes or references: “The petitioner did not identify specific evidence that the director did not consider.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: Insufficient evidence was provided.
- Key quotes or references: “Such general statements, without specifics about how the director erred, are not sufficient to support an appeal.”
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: Membership alone was not sufficient without significant achievements.
- Key quotes or references: “The petitioner must submit documentary evidence of the earnings of those in his occupation performing similar work at the top level of the field.”
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: Insufficient evidence of significant scholarly articles.
- Key quotes or references: “Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: Evidence did not demonstrate a leading or critical role.
- Key quotes or references: “The petitioner’s assertions contained within the appellate brief are not evidence.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable.
- Key quotes or references: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of findings: Provided job offer letters were not sufficient.
- Key quotes or references: “The petitioner must submit evidence of ‘a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field.'”
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable.
- Key quotes or references: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Job Offer Letters: Three job offer letters provided, but they did not establish a high salary in relation to others in the field.
- Motion to Reopen: Discussed specific evidence but concluded it was insufficient.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to sufficiently identify a basis for the appeal and did not meet the regulatory criteria for the EB1 extraordinary ability classification. The evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: The petitioner may file a motion to reconsider the decision or to reopen the proceeding with additional evidence.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
