Date of Decision: AUG. 25, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Speech-Language Pathologist
Field: Rehabilitation Services
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
(iv) Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The beneficiary participated in peer review activities, fulfilling this criterion.
(vi) Authorship of scholarly articles:
The beneficiary authored multiple scholarly articles, meeting this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
(i) Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards:
The petitioner claimed a research grant and a certificate of clinical competence as qualifying awards, but these did not meet the criteria for nationally or internationally recognized prizes.
(ii) Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements:
Membership in ISHA and ASHA did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, thus not fulfilling this criterion.
(v) Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner did not establish the major significance of the beneficiary’s contributions, such as the development of a new test/scale and software for rehabilitation, which were limited in impact.
(viii) Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments:
The roles held by the beneficiary at various institutions did not demonstrate significant importance to the organizations’ outcomes, nor were the organizations shown to have distinguished reputations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings:
The awards claimed did not meet the standard of nationally or internationally recognized prizes.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evaluated in detail.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of the major significance of the beneficiary’s contributions to the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings:
The beneficiary participated in peer review activities, fulfilling this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings:
Membership in ISHA and ASHA did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings:
The beneficiary’s authorship of scholarly articles was recognized, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings:
The roles held by the beneficiary were not demonstrated to be leading or critical within distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Peer Review Participation:
Evidence of the beneficiary’s participation in peer review activities was provided. - Scholarly Articles:
Documentation of multiple scholarly articles authored by the beneficiary was submitted. - Awards and Memberships:
Certificates and membership documents were provided but did not meet the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that fulfill at least three of the ten lesser criteria. The totality of the material provided did not support a conclusion that the beneficiary has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. The evidence did not demonstrate that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Next Steps:
It is recommended that the petitioner consider alternative visa classifications or provide additional evidence addressing the deficiencies noted in the appeal decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here.