Date of Decision: July 16, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Barista
Field: Coffee Brewing and Competitions
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Awards Received:
The Petitioner demonstrated that he received awards in barista competitions in Iran and the United States, including notable placements in several events. These awards were recognized by experts in the coffee industry and were considered significant within the field.
Judging of the Work of Others:
The Petitioner provided evidence that he served as a judge in barista competitions, showcasing his recognized expertise in evaluating the work of other baristas. This demonstrated his ability to contribute to the field through his knowledge and experience.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner submitted several screenshots from various websites, including sprudge.com and ghahvehdaan.ir. However, the materials did not meet the necessary criteria as they were often focused on the events rather than the Petitioner himself. Additionally, the Petitioner did not provide evidence that these websites are major trade publications or major media, nor did the articles consistently include the required details such as the title, date, and author.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner claimed contributions to the field through his victories and participation in competitions. However, the evidence provided did not establish how these contributions were of major significance to the field. The letters of support praised his skills but lacked specific examples demonstrating a significant impact on the coffee industry.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner provided evidence of honorary positions related to his ranking and achievements. However, these positions did not meet the criterion for membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts in the field.
Leading or Critical Role for Organizations with Distinguished Reputations:
The Petitioner claimed to hold critical roles in various coffee-related organizations. However, the evidence did not establish that these organizations had distinguished reputations or that the Petitioner’s roles were critical to their success.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner received several awards in barista competitions. These awards were recognized within the coffee community, but additional evidence was required to fully establish their significance on a national or international level.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The submitted materials focused on events rather than the Petitioner and did not meet the criteria for published material in major media or trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions were acknowledged but not demonstrated to be of major significance. The evidence lacked specific examples of significant impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner served as a judge in barista competitions, demonstrating recognized expertise in the field.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s honorary positions did not meet the criteria for membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable based on the field of coffee brewing and competitions.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s roles were critical to the success of distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable based on the field of coffee brewing and competitions.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable based on the field of coffee brewing and competitions.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included letters from professionals, evidence of awards, articles, and screenshots from various websites. However, these documents did not sufficiently establish the Petitioner’s recognition or meet the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations. The overall review of the submitted materials did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and detailed evidence to support the criteria that were not met. Ensuring that all documentation includes specific details about the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions on the field is crucial for any future submissions.
