Date of Decision: January 29, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Barista
Field: Culinary Arts
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Awards or Prizes: The Petitioner met the criterion for lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The Petitioner received awards in barista competitions.
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner served as a judge for barista competitions, which demonstrated participation in judging the work of others in the field.
Criteria Not Met
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner provided five articles, some of which were previously submitted, and documentation regarding the sources in which these articles were published. However, the Petitioner did not submit evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the sources were professional or major trade publications or other major media. The provided documentation did not establish that the circulation or the intended audience of the publications met the required standards.
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner claimed a leading role in a barista training program. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that this role was critical to the success of the organization. The letters provided did not provide specific, detailed information explaining how the role was critical to the organization’s overall success.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner received awards in barista competitions, satisfying this criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about him were in major trade or professional publications or other major media. The documentation provided did not establish the publications’ status as major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a judge for barista competitions, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
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 he 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: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided and established national or international recognition.
Articles and Publications: Included articles that did not meet the standards for major media coverage or were not primarily about the Petitioner.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met two criteria but 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 he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification. The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner did not meet the requirements and did not provide new, substantial evidence or demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy in the initial decision.
