Date of Decision: May 8, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Accountant
Field: Public Financial Management
Nationality: Brazilian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
[Criterion 1: Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements]
- The petitioner listed memberships in several organizations, but none were demonstrated to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Criteria Not Met:
[Criterion 1: Awards and prizes]
- The petitioner listed several accomplishments, but they did not qualify as nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence.
[Criterion 2: Original contributions of major significance]
- Submitted evidence did not establish the petitioner’s contributions as being of major significance in his field.
[Criterion 3: Authorship of scholarly articles]
- The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he authored scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
[Criterion 4: Performance in a leading or critical role]
- The petitioner’s evidence did not establish that he performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments of distinguished reputation.
[Criterion 5: High salary or remuneration]
- The petitioner did not submit evidence demonstrating a high salary or remuneration compared to others in the field.
[Criterion 6: Commercial successes in the performing arts]
- No evidence was provided to demonstrate commercial successes in the performing arts.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s listed awards did not meet the criteria for internationally or nationally recognized prizes.
- Key quotes or references: “The accomplishments listed do not constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: Material provided was not about the petitioner, but rather about the field in general.
- Key quotes or references: “The article is about a new accounting examination and quotes the petitioner as a member discussing the purpose of the examination.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: Google search results and a letter from a professional association did not establish significant contributions.
- Key quotes or references: “Google search results, without evidence that the search results relate to the petitioner’s original contributions of major significance in the field, are insufficient.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: No substantive evidence was provided.
- Key quotes or references: None available as no evidence was submitted.
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner listed memberships in organizations that did not require outstanding achievements.
- Key quotes or references: “The certificate does not demonstrate the petitioner’s membership in the organization.”
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: Insufficient evidence of authored scholarly articles was provided.
- Key quotes or references: None available as no evidence was submitted.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: Participation in events did not establish a leading or critical role.
- Key quotes or references: “The additional evidence shows the petitioner’s participation in a number of events, but mere participation does not constitute performing either a leading or critical role.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
- Key quotes or references: None available as no evidence was submitted.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
- Key quotes or references: None available as no evidence was submitted.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
- Key quotes or references: None available as no evidence was submitted.
Supporting Documentation
[List all the supporting documents and summarize each of them]
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning:
- The petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability.
- The petitioner’s new evidence did not establish eligibility as of the date of filing.
Next Steps:
- The petitioner may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen within 33 days of this decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
