Date of Decision: July 18, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chief Executive Officer
Field: Entrepreneurship and Caribbean Trade
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner claimed to satisfy three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), but the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner met only one.
Criteria Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner in Major Media:
- The petitioner provided articles and publications discussing his entrepreneurial achievements in Caribbean trade and the coconut industry.
- The AAO agreed that the evidence satisfied this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
- Receipt of Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards:
- The petitioner claimed multiple awards for entrepreneurial achievements, but the AAO found insufficient evidence of their national or international significance.
- Examples included a first prize for Entrepreneurial Spirit and other awards, none of which met the regulatory standard for recognition of excellence in the field.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role for Organizations with Distinguished Reputations:
- The petitioner served as CEO of his beverage company, as well as a trade advisor and consultant with international organizations.
- The AAO found insufficient evidence to establish the organizations’ distinguished reputations or that the petitioner’s roles were critical to their operations.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Material:
Evidence provided met the regulatory requirement, with articles in major trade and professional publications.
Awards:
The petitioner failed to establish the awards’ significance or criteria for recognition, limiting their evidentiary weight.
Leadership Role:
While the petitioner held significant positions, such as trade advisor and consultant with international bodies, the AAO found insufficient documentation to demonstrate these roles’ critical importance or the distinguished reputation of the organizations.
Final Merits Determination Not Reached:
Since the petitioner did not meet at least three regulatory criteria, the AAO did not proceed to a final merits determination.
Supporting Documentation
Published Articles: Evidence of coverage in major media.
Awards: Included but insufficiently documented as nationally or internationally significant.
Leadership Evidence: Positions held, but organizations’ reputations and roles’ criticality were not adequately supported.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met one regulatory criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) but failed to satisfy the required minimum of three. The record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field.
