Date of Decision: July 22, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Administrative Services Manager
Field: Administrative Management
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
None of the criteria were met as per the final decision.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner claimed receipt of several awards, including a certificate of achievement from an international company. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of administrative management. The provided documentation did not adequately support the claim that the Petitioner’s awards were significant within her field.
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. The documentation provided did not adequately support the claim that the Petitioner’s membership was based on such criteria.
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner submitted an article from Working Mom magazine. However, the article focused primarily on the Petitioner’s experience as a working mother rather than her professional accomplishments in administrative management. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the publication is considered major media in her field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed original contributions based on her achievements and impact in her roles. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance. The letters praising the Petitioner’s work lacked specific, detailed information on how her contributions significantly impacted the field of administrative management.
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner provided evidence of her participation as a judge in selecting the “best Management and Marketing Strategies” for an advertising campaign. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that this role involved judging the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner claimed to have held leading roles in various organizations. However, the evidence provided, including letters and certificates, was insufficient to establish that these organizations had distinguished reputations or that her roles were critical to their success. The provided documentation did not adequately support the claim that the Petitioner’s roles were leading or critical.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that she commanded a high salary or remuneration relative to others in her field. The salary data provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that her earnings were significantly high compared to other administrative services managers in her country.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that she personally received nationally or internationally recognized awards. The provided evidence indicated the awards were not of significant recognition within her field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about her were in major trade or professional publications or other major media. The articles provided did not focus primarily on the Petitioner’s professional achievements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters lacked specific details on the impact and significance of her contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner provided evidence of her participation as a judge, but the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that this role involved judging the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that she performed leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that she commanded a high salary or remuneration relative to others in her field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Analysis of Director’s Decision on Motion
The Director initially concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the required criteria and denied the petition. The Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed because it did not include a statement in support of the appeal that specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the Director’s decision. Additionally, the Petitioner did not submit a brief or additional evidence within the given time frame. The matter was then reviewed under a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. However, the Petitioner did not provide new facts or evidence to support the motion, nor did she demonstrate that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen is dismissed. The motion to reconsider is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought. The motions did not establish that the previous decision was incorrect based on the application of law or policy, nor did they provide new evidence to meet the criteria.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification. The Petitioner should ensure that all evidence clearly demonstrates the required levels of recognition and impact in her field.
