Date of Decision: MAY 19, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Sustainable Development and Design
Field: Sustainable development and sustainable design solutions
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None of the criteria were met by the petitioner according to the initial and appellate review.
Criteria Not Met:
- Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor:
The petitioner submitted evidence of awards received by the company or its projects, not by the petitioner himself. The awards were not directly attributed to the petitioner. - Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien’s work in the field for which classification is sought:
The submitted articles were about the petitioner’s company and projects, not about the petitioner specifically. Only a few articles mentioned the petitioner, and those did not focus on his work or achievements. - Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that his work was displayed at an artistic exhibition or showcase. The evidence provided was related to the construction of a project, not an exhibition or showcase.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner provided evidence of awards received by his company, but not by himself personally. The USCIS emphasized that the awards must be directly attributed to the petitioner to meet the criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: None of the submitted articles focused on the petitioner. They mainly covered his company and its projects.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petition did not establish that the petitioner made original contributions of major significance in his field.
Participation as a Judge: No evidence was provided to demonstrate the petitioner’s participation as a judge in the field.
Membership in Associations: No significant evidence was provided regarding the petitioner’s membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner did not submit evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in the field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: No evidence was submitted to demonstrate that the petitioner played a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The petitioner did not demonstrate that his work was exhibited in artistic venues.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner did not provide evidence of high salary or remuneration for services.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: No evidence was submitted to demonstrate commercial success in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
- Award certificates: Descriptions and certificates of awards received by the petitioner’s company.
- Published articles: Nine articles related to the petitioner’s company and projects, with only limited mentions of the petitioner.
- Project descriptions: Documentation describing the petitioner’s company’s projects.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria for EB-1 classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition in the field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering additional, more specific evidence of personal achievements and recognition to meet the EB-1 criteria, or explore other visa categories that may be more suitable.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
Footer: Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 20181351
Document: MAY192022_02B2203
