Date of Decision: January 28, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Social Reformer
Field: Community and Social Services
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
None of the criteria were met as per the final decision.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner submitted copies of three award certificates:
Volunteer Award / Lions of The Year 2015-2016″ from the Lions Club, presented for outstanding dedication and commitment.
National Volunteer Award” from Knowledge Net, recognizing hard work and extraordinary dedication in 2017.
Volunteer Service Award” from a club, recognizing extraordinary social work in 2017.
The certificates contained typographical errors, and some had the Petitioner’s name handwritten into blank spaces. The awards were from local or regional levels, not national or international levels. The significance and recognition of these awards were not sufficiently established with independent evidence.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed original contributions of major significance in the field. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate how these contributions were widely implemented or significantly impacted the field. The letters of support lacked specific details on the impact and significance of the Petitioner’s contributions.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner claimed to have performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the organizations were of distinguished reputation or that the Petitioner’s role was critical to their success. The support letters did not provide specific, detailed information explaining how the Petitioner’s role was critical.
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. The awards were regional or local and lacked independent evidence to establish their significance.
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.
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: No evidence provided.
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 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 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.
