Date of Decision: January 15, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Entrepreneur
Field: Business and Immigration Investment
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
- None
Criteria Not Met
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)): Claimed but not argued on appeal. As a result, the issue was deemed waived and not analyzed further.
- Published Material About the Petitioner (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)): Submissions from Shenzhen Special Zone Daily and haiwai.net.cn only mentioned the petitioner but were not about her. Articles from NetEase, ifeng.com, sohu.com, and qq.com lacked proper author attribution, a regulatory requirement. Several articles were identified as paid advertisements. Two articles postdated the I-140 filing and could not establish eligibility at filing. The petitioner incorrectly argued that author attribution was not required, contradicting the plain language of the regulation.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)): The petitioner emphasized her “one-stop-shop” business model combining family office services with immigration packages. Support letters praised her strategies for job creation and investments. However, no objective corroborating evidence was submitted to support claims of major field-wide significance. The record showed benefits to individual clients and projects, but not evidence of a transformative or widely recognized contribution to the field.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)): Submitted a 2021 article in Science and Life. USCIS determined the article was not scholarly because it lacked original research, peer review, or citations. Science and Life covered a wide range of unrelated topics (physical education, IT, politics, libraries) and was not intended for “learned persons” in business or entrepreneurship. The petitioner also failed to provide evidence of the journal’s circulation or standing relative to professional trade publications.
- Membership in Associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)): Claimed but reserved, as fewer than three criteria were satisfied.
- Leading or Critical Role (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)): Claimed but reserved for the same reason.
Key Points from the Decision
- Waived Arguments: By failing to argue awards on appeal, the petitioner abandoned the claim.
- Regulatory Compliance Issues: Lack of author attribution, post-filing publications, and reliance on advertisements undermined published material claims.
- Insufficient Objective Evidence: Contributions were client-specific and not shown to have field-wide impact.
- Publication Not Scholarly: The petitioner’s submitted article did not meet academic or professional standards.
- Threshold Failure: With no criteria met, the petitioner could not advance to a final merits determination.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO dismissed the appeal. The petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility by establishing at least three evidentiary criteria, and the record as a whole did not show sustained national or international acclaim or that she belongs to the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Supporting Documentation
- Awards Evidence: Claimed but not pursued on appeal.
- Published Material Evidence: Articles and online postings, many lacking authorship or identified as advertisements.
- Contribution Evidence: Business plans and reference letters regarding “one-stop-shop” model, lacking objective corroboration.
- Authorship Evidence: 2021 Science and Life article, rejected as non-scholarly.
- Reserved Evidence: Membership and leadership claims not addressed due to threshold failure.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not satisfy three regulatory criteria. Her evidence of awards, publications, contributions, and authorship failed to meet regulatory standards, and reserved claims could not cure the deficiency.
