Date of Decision: December 18, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: CEO/Manager/Entrepreneur
Field: Business
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to demonstrate eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) by satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner failed to meet the necessary criteria to establish eligibility.
Criteria Met
- None:
The petitioner failed to satisfy the evidentiary standards for any of the criteria.
Criteria Not Met
- High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner submitted salary information for positions in Brazil and Utah. However, the evidence provided, including wage comparisons from Glassdoor and other sources, was insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner’s salary was significantly higher than peers in the same field. The comparisons did not consider factors such as region, employer type, or years of experience. - Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
Although the petitioner claimed eligibility based on participation as a judge in her field, this criterion was reserved for consideration because meeting it would not alter the final determination of ineligibility. - Continuing Work in the Area of Expertise:
The petitioner did not sufficiently establish that she would continue working in the area of extraordinary ability upon entering the United States, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5).
Key Points from the Decision
- Salary Evidence:
Glassdoor statistics were deemed insufficient for comparison due to limited data points and lack of differentiation in experience or geographic region. - Judging Evidence:
This criterion was not evaluated in detail, as the petitioner did not meet the minimum number of criteria for eligibility. - Work Continuation Evidence:
The petitioner failed to provide a detailed plan or evidence of continued work in the area of extraordinary ability.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO concluded that the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria and therefore did not demonstrate extraordinary ability or sustained national or international acclaim.
Supporting Documentation
Salary Evidence: Letters and wage comparisons for positions in Brazil and Utah, deemed insufficient for demonstrating significantly high remuneration.
Judging Evidence: General claims of judging roles, reserved for consideration.
Work Continuation Evidence: Lack of documentation proving continued work in the area of expertise.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for at least three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The evidence provided did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position the petitioner among the very top of the field.
