Date of Decision: September 15, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Manager
Field: Business Operations (Specialized in Agriculture – Mushroom Business)
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Intent upon Entry: The petitioner demonstrated his intent to continue work in his area of expertise by providing a statement outlining his future business plans in the United States.
Criteria Not Met:
- Receipt of Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The petitioner failed to prove that the awards received were recognized beyond the issuing authorities, as they lacked evidence of national or international recognition within the field of business operations.
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to corroborate his specific duties as an editor or a judge within his industry.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner could not substantiate claims of major contributions to his field, as the supporting evidence was either unverified or lacked significance to the broader business community.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role: While the petitioner held significant positions, the organizations he was associated with did not have documented distinguished reputations.
- High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he commanded a high salary relative to others in his field, lacking necessary comparative data and documentation of earnings.
Key Points from the Decision
- Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner claimed several awards, but none were recognized beyond their issuing authorities, thus failing to meet the criterion for nationally or internationally recognized awards.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The evidence provided, such as contracts and letters from colleagues, did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance in the field of business operations.
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner did not sufficiently document his role or duties as an editor or judge in his field, leading to a failure to meet this criterion.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role: Although the petitioner held important positions within organizations, there was no substantial evidence that these organizations had distinguished reputations, which is required to satisfy this criterion.
- High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner did not offer adequate proof of his salary relative to others in his field, making it difficult to establish that he commanded a high salary or remuneration.
Supporting Documentation
- Awards and Prizes Documentation: Copies of awards were submitted, but lacked external recognition.
- Contracts and Letters: Documentation of business deals and letters from colleagues were provided, but did not establish the petitioner’s contributions as being of major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the necessary criteria for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to meet the required initial evidence criteria, and the aggregate materials did not demonstrate the level of expertise required for the sought classification.
Next Steps: The petitioner should consider gathering more substantial and corroborative evidence that aligns with the regulatory criteria if they intend to pursue similar classifications in the future.
Download the Full Petition Review Here