Date of Decision: August 28, 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:
- High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner submitted additional documentation related to his employment as a “Scientist III” at a private U.S. university, which includes pay statements indicating a high salary. However, this evidence pertains to employment commenced after the filing of the petition and thus does not satisfy the criterion at the time of the original filing.
Criteria Not Met:
- Receipt of a Major, Internationally Recognized Award:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving a major, internationally recognized award. - Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not establish that he met the requirements for membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements. - Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner failed to provide sufficient published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media. - Participation as a Judge:
There was no evidence submitted that demonstrated the petitioner had participated as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field. - Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not submit adequate evidence of original contributions of major significance in his field. - Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications. - Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
There was no evidence provided that the petitioner’s work has been displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases. - Commercial Success in Performing Arts:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not present evidence of awards that meet the criteria of a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
There was insufficient evidence of published materials about the petitioner that meets the regulatory criteria.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the sciences.
Participation as a Judge:
No evidence was provided showing participation as a judge of the work of others.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not meet the criteria for membership in associations that require outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence of authorship of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not provide evidence demonstrating a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
No evidence was submitted of the petitioner’s work being displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
While new evidence was submitted regarding high salary, it did not establish that the petitioner met the criterion at the time of filing.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
- H-1B Nonimmigrant Petition Approval Notice:
Authorized the petitioner’s employment from February 2023 through February 2026. - Pay Statements:
Indicated the petitioner’s salary as a “Scientist III” starting February 2023.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motions to reopen and reconsider were both dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to provide new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding. The additional evidence related to his high salary did not establish that he met the criterion at the time of the original petition filing. Moreover, the petitioner did not demonstrate any error in law or policy in the previous decision.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering additional qualifying evidence and possibly reapplying if he believes he can meet the evidentiary criteria in the future.
