Date of Decision: MAY 26, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Administrative Services Manager
Field: Administrative Services
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- None: The petitioner did not meet any of the criteria required for the EB-1 classification.
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards: The petitioner did not provide evidence of a one-time achievement or major, internationally recognized prize or award.
- Published Material: No evidence of published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications.
- Original Contributions: Insufficient evidence of original contributions of major significance in the field.
- Judging the Work of Others: Lack of documentation showing participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field.
- Membership in Associations: Did not establish membership in associations that require outstanding achievements.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: No scholarly articles authored by the petitioner were presented.
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not demonstrate a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
- High Salary or Remuneration: Evidence of a high salary or other significantly high remuneration was not provided.
- Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable to the petitioner’s field.
- Commercial Successes in Performing Arts: Not applicable to the petitioner’s field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner failed to provide evidence of a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
There was no documentation submitted showing published materials about the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to establish original contributions of major significance in the field of administrative services.
Participation as a Judge:
No evidence was provided to show the petitioner’s participation as a judge of the work of others.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not prove membership in associations that require outstanding achievements as criteria.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
No scholarly articles authored by the petitioner were included in the documentation.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not establish that they held a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of high salary or other significantly high remuneration.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Affidavit from Petitioner: Provided but did not meet the evidentiary criteria.
- Employer Letters: Provided but insufficient to prove extraordinary ability.
- Professional Memberships: Documentation did not meet the required standards for evidence.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not provide new evidence or sufficiently address the deficiencies noted in previous decisions. The resubmission of identical briefs without new facts or arguments failed to meet the requirements for a motion to reopen or reconsider.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence and addressing specific criteria deficiencies if planning to refile in the future.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 20598025
Document: MAY262022_02B2203
