Date of Decision: February 3, 2025
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Consultant and Executive
Field: Business Management and Consulting
Nationality: Georgia
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
- Published Material About the Petitioner (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii))
Evidence showed that the petitioner received media attention while serving as general director of a beauty supply distributorship. - Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii))
The petitioner’s leadership of a company in Georgia distributing a major beauty brand was accepted as a critical role.
Criteria Not Met
- Membership in Associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii))
Membership in ISFP and BPW Georgia lacked objective documentation of outstanding achievement requirements or vetting by recognized experts. - Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv))
Claimed judging through consulting projects and fashion show involvement did not constitute peer-review or judging in the field. - Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v))
Business plans and real estate projects were employer-specific, lacking field-wide significance. Letters were uncorroborated and did not establish major influence. - Authorship of Scholarly Articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi))
Strategic development program document was not shown to be a published scholarly article in professional or major media. - High Salary or Remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix))
Employer letter claimed salary five times higher than average but lacked comparative data or corroborating sources.
Key Points from the Decision
- Insufficient Membership Proof: No bylaws, constitutions, or documented membership criteria provided.
- Judging Claims Unsubstantiated: Consulting and event participation not equivalent to judging peers’ work.
- Contributions Narrow in Scope: Projects lacked proof of significance beyond individual employers or clients.
- Salary Comparison Unsupported: No statistical or market evidence to confirm claims of high salary.
- Reliance on Letters: Letters provided limited weight without supporting objective documentation.
- Prominence Not Sustained: Strongest evidence dated 2015–2018; later records did not show similar recognition.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO found that the petitioner met only two criteria. She did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or show that she belongs to the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Supporting Documentation
- Published Material Evidence: Articles mentioning petitioner’s business leadership role.
- Leadership Evidence: Proof of role as general director in Georgia’s beauty distribution industry.
- Membership Evidence: ISFP and BPW Georgia documentation (not qualifying).
- Judging Evidence: Consulting and event letters (not qualifying).
- Contribution Evidence: Letters and promotional materials for projects (not qualifying).
- Scholarly Authorship Evidence: Development program and newspaper references (not qualifying).
- Salary Evidence: Employer letter without comparative data (not qualifying).
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: Petitioner demonstrated two criteria but failed to meet the minimum of three and did not establish sustained acclaim or recognition at the very top of her field.
