Date of Decision: October 26, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Sustainability Specialist
Field: Business Sustainability
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging:
The petitioner fulfilled the criterion for judging, demonstrating their role as a judge in the field of business sustainability.
Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner met the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles in the field of business sustainability.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
The petitioner did not establish that the awards mentioned (e.g., DAAD scholarship) were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the memberships claimed required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that their contributions were of major significance to the field of business sustainability.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner did not establish that they performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration:
The petitioner did not show that their salary was high relative to others in the field, lacking substantial comparative salary data.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- DAAD Scholarship: The petitioner was one of five selected out of sixty-seven applicants from Africa. However, it was not sufficiently proven that the scholarship is nationally or internationally recognized as an award for excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has authored scholarly articles in the field of business sustainability, fulfilling this criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Software Development: The petitioner developed a custom web-based software for financial management in HIV and AIDS projects in Ghana. However, the significance of this contribution to the broader field was not sufficiently demonstrated.
Participation as a Judge:
- Judging Role: The petitioner’s role as a judge in relevant competitions or evaluations in the field was recognized.
Membership in Associations:
- IASSIST Membership: The petitioner did not demonstrate that the membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Leading or Critical Role:
- Strategic Plans and Financial Systems: While the petitioner contributed to strategic plans and financial systems, it was not established that these roles were leading or critical in a manner significant to the field.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Income Comparison: The petitioner provided an earnings report but did not offer sufficient comparative salary data relative to others in the same field and location.
Supporting Documentation
- International Award DAAD: Letter from Professor P-Q- supporting the recognition of the award.
- Best Worker Award: Photograph and certificate with insufficient supporting evidence regarding national or international recognition.
- Membership Letters: Letters from W-N-A- and other associations failing to demonstrate the requirement of outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
- Software Implementation Reports: User manual, training report, and recommendation letters regarding the petitioner’s software development, lacking proof of major significance.
- Income Reports: Estimated earnings report and comparative table without supporting evidence for high remuneration claims.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the evidentiary criteria required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. The appeal was dismissed as the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that they are among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider providing more comprehensive evidence to fulfill the required criteria or explore other visa classifications that might be more suitable to their qualifications and achievements.
