Date of Decision: July 3, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Barista
Field: Hospitality and Beverage Crafting
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Motion to Reopen Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner filed a motion to reopen the denial of their EB-1 petition. This was the petitioner’s ninth motion, and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed it due to procedural and substantive issues.
Key Issues Highlighted in the Decision:
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner submitted documents related to the website Sprudge to satisfy the criterion for published material.
- However, the evidence did not sufficiently establish Sprudge as major media or professional trade publications under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
- Metrics, rankings, and visitor statistics lacked context, significance, or relevance to the petitioner’s extraordinary ability claim.
- Failure to Address the Latest Decision:
- The petitioner’s motion did not address the reasoning of the most recent AAO decision as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii).
- Instead, the evidence reiterated points previously deemed insufficient in prior motions.
- Self-Promotional Evidence:
- The AAO referenced Braga v. Poulos to emphasize that self-serving assertions by a publisher are not sufficient to demonstrate major media recognition.
Key Points from the Decision
Procedural Issues:
The petitioner failed to comply with regulatory requirements to address the AAO’s latest decision. Filing repetitive motions without new facts or arguments undermined the procedural validity of the motion.
Substantive Evidence Deficiencies:
Even if the evidence provided had been considered anew, it was insufficient to meet the regulatory standard for the criterion related to published material about the petitioner.
Supporting Documentation
Published Material Evidence:
Documents included metrics and rankings for Sprudge but lacked context or significance to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Prior Decisions Referenced:
The decision noted a history of eight prior motions, all dismissed for similar deficiencies in addressing evidentiary and procedural requirements.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to address the latest AAO decision and provided insufficient evidence to meet the regulatory criteria for published material about the petitioner. The case remains denied, with no substantive progress made in the motion to reopen.
