Date of Decision: JULY 2, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Accountant
Field: Accounting
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None successfully demonstrated as per the AAO’s final decision.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published material about the petitioner: No qualifying publications were identified that would support the claim to extraordinary ability.
- Participation as a judge of the work of others: The petitioner’s work did not meet the regulatory requirements for this criterion.
- Authorship of scholarly articles: The lack of properly certified translations and absence of necessary publication evidence led to this criterion not being met.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable. No relevant awards or prizes were cited that could influence the decision.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner failed to provide any significant published materials about themselves to support claims of extraordinary ability.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable. There were no contributions mentioned that met the necessary criteria for consideration.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner’s involvement in judging was deemed insufficient and not up to the regulatory standards required for this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable. No memberships were presented that would support the petitioner’s claims of recognition in the field of accounting.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
Failure to provide certified translations and required documentation negated this criterion.
Leading or critical role performed:
Not applicable. There were no roles mentioned that could substantiate claims of a leading or critical position in the field.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted various documents, none of which adequately supported the claims of extraordinary ability as per the criteria outlined. The lack of new facts or substantial evidence in the petitioner’s motion to reopen and reconsider also led to the denial of these motions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motions to reconsider and to reopen the case were denied based on the failure to meet the burden of proof required for the classification sought.
Reasoning:
The evidence provided did not satisfactorily demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field of accounting. Both the motions lacked new, substantive evidence that could alter the original decision.
Next Steps:
The petitioner should consider gathering more robust evidence that fulfills the criteria or explore alternative visa classifications suitable for their qualifications and intentions.
