Date of Decision: August 16, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Manager
Field: Construction and Architectural Engineering
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner claimed eligibility under several regulatory criteria but failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for any.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
- No evidence of prizes or awards recognized nationally or internationally in the field of construction and architectural engineering.
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- The petitioner provided evidence of participating in a Moscow exhibition-presentation as a jury member, but the AAO found it insufficient to meet the regulatory standard.
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- No substantive evidence of published material meeting the criteria for major professional or trade publications.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role:
- Letters and certificates acknowledged the petitioner’s participation in projects but lacked evidence of critical roles within distinguished organizations.
Key Points from the Decision
Untimely RFE Response:
- The petitioner attempted to respond to the RFE but sent documents to the wrong address without the required coversheet, delaying processing.
- A subsequent response was submitted to the correct address but missed the deadline by 21 days, leading to the denial.
Client Letters:
- The petitioner provided client letters that appreciated his company’s work on unspecified projects. The AAO found these letters insufficient to establish extraordinary ability or national/international acclaim.
Director’s Decision:
- The Director concluded that the petitioner’s submissions failed to address the eligibility criteria explicitly and did not demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Final Merits Determination Not Reached:
- The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not meet at least three regulatory criteria and failed to provide grounds for appeal as required under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v).
Supporting Documentation
Judging Evidence: Participation in an exhibition-presentation as a jury member, insufficiently documented.
Client Letters: Letters appreciating contributions to municipal and private projects, lacking specifics on extraordinary achievements.
General Evidence: Job announcements and translated certificates that did not meet evidentiary standards for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet any regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of construction and architectural engineering.
