Date of Decision: February 26, 2025
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1A Extraordinary Ability
Field of Expertise: Business Administration
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Manager
Field: Business Administration
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied – Director found petitioner met only one criterion (published material) but incorrectly credited evidence.
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed – AAO found petitioner did not establish three criteria and upheld denial.
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met (Withdrawn on Appeal):
- Published Material About the Petitioner (iii): Director originally found this satisfied. On appeal, AAO withdrew this determination, concluding the submitted media was primarily about the employer or industry, not the petitioner himself, and lacked circulation or audience data.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance (v): Petitioner claimed pioneering work in purchasing systems, logistics models, and digital transformation. However, USCIS found the evidence showed achievements mainly benefiting his employer, not the wider field. Recommendation letters praised him but lacked corroboration showing field-wide significance.
- Leading or Critical Role (viii): While petitioner held leadership positions, USCIS determined he did not establish that the organizations had distinguished reputations. Company profiles and reports did not prove eminence or distinction in the field.
- High Salary (ix): USCIS did not reach this argument because petitioner failed to demonstrate at least three criteria overall.
Key Points from the Decision
- Submitted articles mostly discussed the beverage industry and employer’s activities, with only passing mentions of the petitioner.
- AAO emphasized that published material must be “about” the petitioner and his work, not about an associated company.
- Original contributions were not shown to be of major significance beyond employer impact, failing to establish widespread industry influence.
- Organizations where petitioner held leadership roles were not proven to have distinguished reputations.
- Because fewer than three criteria were established, no final merits determination was required; even so, AAO noted the record did not show sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Intent: Employer and peer endorsements of achievements, but focused on internal impact.
- Business Plan: Not applicable.
- Advisory Letter: Provided by colleagues and industry contacts, but lacked sufficient probative value.
- Other Supporting Documentation: Media articles, company profiles, and logistics summit reports were considered but found inadequate.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: Petitioner did not demonstrate at least three evidentiary criteria. The record showed company-specific success but not extraordinary ability, sustained acclaim, or standing among the small percentage at the very top of the field of business administration.
