Date of Decision: April 3, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Vocational Agricultural Teacher
- Field: Sciences
- Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- None met: The decision explicitly states that the petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria.
Criteria Not Met:
- High Salary or Remuneration:
- The petitioner claimed a salary in the upper 90% for a Soil and Plant Scientist but did not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. Additionally, the job offer used as evidence was dated after the initial petition filing and could not establish eligibility at the time of filing.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: None specified.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: None specified.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: None specified.
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: None specified.
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: None specified.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: None specified.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: None specified.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of findings: None specified.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of findings:
- The petitioner’s evidence did not demonstrate a salary that is high in relation to others in the field overall. The petitioner did not offer sufficient evidence to support the claim that his salary was in the upper 90% for his field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Summary of findings: None specified.
Supporting Documentation
- Offer Letter (December 2022):
- This letter was not accepted as it did not prove eligibility at the time of the initial petition in June 2021.
- BLS Statistics:
- Insufficient evidence was provided to support the petitioner’s claims about salary in comparison to others in his field.
Conclusion
- Final Determination: The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed.
- Reasoning: The petitioner did not provide new facts or sufficient evidence to establish eligibility at the time of the initial filing. Additionally, no errors of law or policy were identified in the prior decision.
Next Steps
- Recommendations: The petitioner should consider providing new, relevant evidence and addressing the specific deficiencies noted in this decision if they choose to refile or further appeal the decision.
