Date of Decision: January 23, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Construction CMS Consultant
Field: Business Development for the Construction Industry
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Membership in Associations
The petitioner provided evidence of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements, such as the [specific associations not mentioned in the summary].
Criterion 2: Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others
The petitioner demonstrated participation as a judge of the work of others in his field.
Criterion 3: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner claimed original business-related contributions of major significance in the field of construction business development.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Receipt of Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards
The petitioner claimed several awards but did not provide adequate evidence to demonstrate that these awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
Criterion 2: Published Material About the Petitioner
The petitioner provided published materials about him and his work, but the Director determined that this evidence did not meet the criterion.
Criterion 3: Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner submitted evidence of authorship of scholarly articles, but the Director concluded that the evidence did not pertain to his proposed employment as a construction CMS consultant in the United States.
Criterion 4: Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that he performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Criterion 5: High Salary or Remuneration
The petitioner did not demonstrate that his salary was high relative to others in the field. The Director required evidence that the petitioner’s past earnings were obtained through employment specifically as a construction CMS consultant.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner claimed several awards but did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided published materials about him and his work, but the Director did not find this evidence met the criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed original business-related contributions of major significance in the field but did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the widespread impact or implementation of his contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others in his field.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner provided evidence of membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner submitted evidence of authorship of scholarly articles, but the Director concluded that the evidence did not pertain to his proposed employment as a construction CMS consultant in the United States.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that he held leading or critical roles within distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that his salary was high relative to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Publications: Various articles and publications about the petitioner’s work.
Letters of Reference: Letters from colleagues and associates detailing the petitioner’s contributions and roles.
Award Documentation: Information about the awards claimed by the petitioner.
Salary Information: Documentation of the petitioner’s salary compared to industry standards.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The decision of the Director is withdrawn and the matter is remanded for a new decision consistent with the analysis provided.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. The Director’s decision lacked a detailed analysis of the evidence submitted in support of the petition. The petitioner clearly labeled and identified the relevance of its evidentiary exhibits, yet the Director’s decision indicated that the documentation was not properly labeled or marked. Furthermore, the Director imposed novel requirements not found in the plain language of the regulations. The Director should avoid imposing such requirements when re-examining the petitioner’s evidence on remand.
Next Steps:
The petitioner should ensure that all relevant evidence is clearly labeled and meets the regulatory criteria. It may be beneficial to gather more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on awards with national or international recognition, significant contributions, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. The petitioner should also address any deficiencies noted in the Director’s original decision and provide additional documentation to support the claims made in the petition.
