Date of Decision: December 31, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Field of Expertise: Wedding and Event Planning
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Executive
Field: Wedding and Event Planning
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None specified in the document.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in the Brazilian Association of Social Events (ABRAFESTA). However, the evidence did not demonstrate that this membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. The letters provided did not establish that the criteria for membership met the required standard, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner claimed her role on the executive board of ABRAFESTA involved judging the work of others. However, the evidence showed that the executive board members relied on the judgment of others rather than observing the work first-hand. The Petitioner’s involvement in lecturing at a university also did not demonstrate judging the work of professionals in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed contributions to ABRAFESTA’s Code of Conduct and authored articles registered in the Brazilian National Library. However, the evidence did not establish that these contributions were of major significance to the field. The letters provided did not demonstrate a significant impact or widespread implementation of her contributions, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner provided articles published in magazines such as Go’Where Noiva, Noivas & Noivos, and Debutantes. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these articles were written for learned persons in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Display at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Petitioner claimed that her work was displayed in private marriage receptions and on a television show. However, the evidence did not establish that these were artistic exhibitions or showcases. The work displayed at marriage receptions was attributed to various suppliers rather than the Petitioner, and the television show was for entertainment and commercial purposes, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided articles, but they did not establish these as major media or primarily about her.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions were not demonstrated to have major significance in the field of wedding and event planning.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner did not establish that she participated as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner did not establish that her memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner’s articles were not established as scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner did not establish her roles as leading or critical in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner’s work was not established as displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including letters of recommendation, articles, and evidence of her work. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner provided documentation related to membership in associations, participation as a judge, original contributions, and authorship of articles, the evidence was insufficient to establish these criteria. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of her contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit her qualifications.
