EB-1 Extraordinary Ability USCIS Appeal Review – City Branding Expert – MAR222023_02B2203

Date of Decision: March 22, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability

---

Petitioner Information

• Profession: City Branding Expert
• Field: City Branding
• Nationality: [Nationality Not Specified]

Summary of Decision

• Initial Decision: Denied
• Appeal Outcome: Denied

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Criteria Met:

1. Original Contributions of Major Significance:

• The petitioner claimed to have made original contributions of major significance in the field of city branding.

1. Authorship of Scholarly Articles:

• The petitioner had authored several articles in reputable journals related to city branding.

Criteria Not Met:

1. Awards and Prizes Won:

• The petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in the field.

1. Published Materials About the Petitioner:

• Insufficient documentation of published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications.

1. Participation as a Judge:

• Lack of evidence supporting the petitioner’s participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field.

1. Membership in Associations:

• The petitioner did not demonstrate membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements.

1. Leading or Critical Role:

• No substantial proof was provided to show the petitioner played a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations.

1. Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:

• The petitioner did not exhibit their work in artistic exhibitions or showcases.

1. Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:

• There was no documentation to show that the petitioner commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration.

1. Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:

• No evidence was presented of commercial successes in the performing arts.

Key Points from the Decision

Awards and Prizes Won:

• Summary of Findings:
• The petitioner did not meet the criteria for awards and prizes as there were no notable accolades presented.
• Key Quotes or References:
• Not applicable.

Published Materials About the Petitioner:

• Summary of Findings:
• Insufficient evidence was provided regarding published materials about the petitioner.
• Key Quotes or References:
• Not applicable.

Original Contributions of Major Significance:

• Summary of Findings:
• The petitioner’s contributions were not deemed sufficiently significant to meet the criteria.
• Key Quotes or References:
• Not applicable.

Participation as a Judge:

• Summary of Findings:
• The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence of participation as a judge in their field.
• Key Quotes or References:
• Not applicable.

Membership in Associations:

• Summary of Findings:
• The petitioner did not demonstrate membership in associations that require outstanding achievements.
• Key Quotes or References:
• Not applicable.

Authorship of Scholarly Articles:

• Summary of Findings:
• The petitioner had authored several scholarly articles, but this alone was not sufficient to overturn the decision.
• Key Quotes or References:
• Not applicable.

Leading or Critical Role:

• Summary of Findings:
• There was no substantial proof of the petitioner’s leading or critical role in organizations.
• Key Quotes or References:
• Not applicable.

Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:

• Summary of Findings:
• The petitioner did not participate in artistic exhibitions or showcases.
• Key Quotes or References:
• Not applicable.

Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:

• Summary of Findings:
• The petitioner did not provide evidence of a high salary or significant remuneration.
• Key Quotes or References:
• Not applicable.

Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:

• Summary of Findings:
• There were no commercial successes in the performing arts provided.
• Key Quotes or References:
• Not applicable.

Supporting Documentation

• List of Supporting Documents:

1. Articles Authored by Petitioner:
   • Summarized list of articles written by the petitioner related to city branding.
2. Professional Evaluations:
   • Professional evaluations attesting to the petitioner’s contributions in city branding.
3. Reference Letters:
   • Letters of recommendation from experts in the field supporting the petitioner’s claims.

Conclusion

• Final Determination: Both motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed.
• Reasoning:
• The petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence.
• The petitioner’s delay in filing the initial combined motions was not reasonable or beyond her control.
• Next Steps:
• The petitioner may seek further legal advice or consider reapplying with additional and more compelling evidence.

---

Download the Full Petition Review Here