Date of Decision: February 14, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Tech Author, Journalist, and Educator
Field: Technology-focused Journalism
Nationality: [Nationality]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Published material about the individual in professional or major media: The petitioner had published material about her in professional or major media.
- Participation as a judge of the work of others: The petitioner had participated as a judge of the work of others.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original contributions of major significance: The petitioner did not establish that her contributions were of major significance in the field of technology-focused journalism. The evidence provided, including testimonials and participation in conferences, did not demonstrate that her work had a significant impact on the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The Director and AAO acknowledged that the petitioner met the criterion for published material about her in professional or major media. However, specific examples or detailed descriptions were not provided in the summary.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Testimonials from notable individuals like the Director of the USC Center for Public Relations and a Journalism Innovation Professor were submitted. These letters described the petitioner’s influence and unique contributions but lacked detailed, specific information on how her contributions significantly impacted the field.
- The AAO concluded that the evidence provided did not meet the regulatory requirements for original contributions of major significance. General statements and commendations were insufficient without specific details and examples of major impact.
Participation as a Judge:
- The petitioner had served as a judge of the work of others, which was recognized as meeting the criterion. Specific details of her judging roles were not included in the summary provided.
Supporting Documentation
- Testimonials: Letters from esteemed professionals in the field, including detailed support and recommendations for the petitioner’s work.
- Published Works: Documentation of articles and media coverage about the petitioner’s contributions.
- Conference Participation: Evidence of the petitioner’s participation in and contribution to peer-reviewed conferences and seminars.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of demonstrating original contributions of major significance in the field of technology-focused journalism. The provided evidence, including letters and conference participation, lacked specific details and examples proving a significant impact on the field.
Next Steps:
- Recommendations: The petitioner may need to gather more specific, detailed evidence of her contributions’ impact on the field, focusing on demonstrable, significant achievements and their influence on technology-focused journalism.
- Possible Actions: Consideration of reapplying with additional, robust documentation that meets the required criteria or exploring other visa classifications that might better align with the petitioner’s qualifications and achievements.
This structured analysis highlights the decision-making process and areas where the petitioner’s documentation fell short, providing clear guidance for future actions.
