DISCLAIMER: The case described below is not associated with our firm, Bloomberg Law Firm, P.C. This case was sourced from public records. Any resemblance to actual persons or cases is purely coincidental.
An EB-1A petition (or EB-1A visa petition) is an immigration petition filed under the first preference category of the EB-1 visa for individuals with 'extraordinary ability.' This category is designed for people who have achieved exceptional success in their fields, such as science, art, education, business, or sports.
Initial evidence must include either proof of a single achievement (e.g., a major internationally recognized award such as a Nobel Prize) or at least meeting three of the criteria listed in the regulations.
Anyone who has ever been interested in an EB-1 petition knows these criteria. They include receiving national or international awards, membership in professional associations, media publications, judging the work of other professionals, original contributions to the field that have had a significant impact on the industry, scholarly articles intended for other professionals in the field, exhibitions or demonstrations of work, a key role in an organization (critical or leading role), high remuneration, commercial success.
Often, people mistakenly believe that applying for an EB-1A is straightforward and just "meeting the criteria" is enough. I frequently hear from various people, "I had a high salary, I played a leading role in my company, and I can write a few media articles, so I qualify for EB-1. Let's file a petition." But as usual, the essence lies in the details, and in this article, using the example of a biomedical engineering researcher, I will illustrate that meeting the criteria alone is not sufficient.
Case Description and Initial Officer Decision
The petitioner, a biomedical engineering researcher, submitted evidence for at least three of the criteria mentioned in the appeal office materials:
Judging the work of other professionals in the field
Original scientific contributions to the field
Scholarly articles
Even at the initial review of the petition, the immigration officer at the Texas Service Center acknowledged all three of the criteria mentioned above but still denied the petition. How did this happen? After all, three criteria were met, which many believe is sufficient for obtaining a green card.
The petition was ultimately denied because the provided evidence failed to collectively demonstrate that the petitioner had achieved national or international recognition or that they were among a small percentage of the top professionals in their field. Yes, that's correct. Your evidence must also demonstrate that you are a top specialist in your field. However, the petitioner was dissatisfied with this decision and appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office.
Petitioner's Appeal and Final Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office
In the appeal, the petitioner argues that the director's decision "contained general disclaimers" and that the analysis of the petitioner's achievements and their standing in a small percentage of top professionals in their field was conducted improperly. The petitioner also claims that the director misjudged the evidence by evaluating it separately rather than collectively, leading to an incorrect assessment of eligibility for extraordinary ability status. Specifically, the petitioner believes that the director did not properly analyze the recommendation letters, publications, citations, patents, research funding, academic and professional achievements, and peer review of other scholars' work.
After reviewing all materials, including the initial petition, responses, and additional documents submitted on appeal, the Appeals Board did not agree with the petitioner's arguments and upheld the director's decision. The Appeals Board concluded that the director's decision was based on a thorough analysis of all evidence, and the director correctly identified the reasons why the petitioner's evidence did not support a claim of extraordinary ability in science or being among the top specialists in the field. For instance, the director considered the petitioner's work as a reviewer but noted that it did not demonstrate extraordinary achievements compared to peers. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to refute the officer's findings or demonstrate an error in the application of the law or policy in the denial of the petition. The officer did not rely on just one criterion to make conclusions about the petitioner's extraordinary abilities. During its analysis, the Board found that the officer carefully reviewed and evaluated the submitted documents; the officer discussed various aspects of the evidence individually but overall considered all documentation to ultimately determine that the petitioner was not an individual of extraordinary ability.
Thus, after reviewing the appeal, the Administrative Appeals Office concluded that the documents provided by the petitioner did not show that he had achieved national or international recognition in his field and did not prove that he was among a small percentage of the top specialists in his field. Therefore, the appeal was denied, and the officer's decision to deny the petition was upheld.
Immigration to the USA is a complex process, requiring knowledge of numerous nuances. If the petitioner had consulted an experienced attorney, the attorney could have helped to properly structure the strategy and petition to not only meet certain criteria but also demonstrate the petitioner's standing among the top specialists in the field. If you are planning to file an EB-1A petition and believe you have already gathered the necessary documents, be sure to double-check – consult with an experienced immigration attorney.
We would be happy to guide you and review your materials to not only assess whether you meet the existing criteria but also determine whether the existing documents show that you are among the top specialists in your field.
Comments