Date of Decision: November 15, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Writer
Field: Literature
Nationality: Bangladeshi
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- None
Criteria Not Met:
- (i) Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards: The petitioner submitted evidence of three claimed awards. However, the Director determined that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that each award is nationally or internationally recognized. The petitioner’s response did not provide credible evidence to support the recognition of the awards.
- (ii) Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements: The petitioner claimed membership in several associations but did not provide sufficient evidence of the membership requirements or how they reflect outstanding achievements.
- (iii) Published material about the individual in professional or major media: The petitioner submitted articles that were determined to be falsified or not meeting the regulatory requirements, such as having anonymous authors and lacking proper certification of translations.
- (iv) Participation as a judge of the work of others: Detailed discussion was reserved as it would not change the outcome.
- (vii) Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases: The petitioner did not provide evidence that her work was displayed at public showings distinct from print publications.
- (ix) High remuneration for services: The petitioner submitted various contracts and letters but did not provide a reliable basis for comparison to show her remuneration was high relative to others in her field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The petitioner submitted certificates and letters for three awards but did not establish their national or international recognition. The evidence provided was not sufficient to demonstrate the awards’ recognition beyond the issuing entities.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner submitted multiple articles that were found to be falsified or did not meet the requirements for major media publications. The lack of credible evidence undermined the reliability of the submitted articles.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Not applicable or not sufficiently demonstrated.
Participation as a Judge:
- Not sufficiently demonstrated.
Membership in Associations:
- The petitioner’s claimed memberships did not meet the regulatory requirements as there was insufficient evidence of outstanding achievements required for membership.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
- Not applicable or not sufficiently demonstrated.
Leading or critical role performed:
- Not applicable or not sufficiently demonstrated.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- The petitioner did not establish that her work was publicly shown in artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- The petitioner’s evidence of remuneration lacked a reliable basis for comparison and did not demonstrate high earnings relative to others in her field.
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable or not sufficiently demonstrated.
Supporting Documentation
- Certificates and Letters: Submitted certificates and letters for awards and memberships, which were not sufficiently verified for national or international recognition.
- Articles and Publications: Submitted articles, some of which were found to be falsified, undermining their credibility.
- Contracts and Payment Records: Submitted contracts and payment records, but without a reliable basis for comparison to others in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed. The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and was found to have willfully misrepresented material facts.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to provide credible and sufficient evidence to meet the regulatory requirements for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. The submission of falsified articles significantly undermined the credibility of the evidence.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider reapplying with credible evidence and ensuring all submitted documentation meets the required standards for authenticity and relevance.
