Date of Decision: January 29, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Entrepreneur
- Field: Business and Maritime Trade
- Nationality: Brazilian
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Not Applicable: The decision document does not specify criteria that were met.
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner submitted an award received by his company, but the evidence did not establish that he personally received the award as required by the criterion .
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: Articles from various Brazilian newspapers were submitted. However, they did not qualify as major media or trade publications, and many articles either did not mention the petitioner or lacked required information such as the date and author .
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: Letters praised the petitioner’s entrepreneurial work but did not establish that his activities were original contributions of major significance that impacted his field beyond his own companies .
- Membership in Associations: Letters from representatives of two organizations stated that the petitioner met membership requirements, but lacked detailed information regarding the criteria for membership and did not indicate that recognized national or international experts judged the petitioner’s achievements .
- Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner argued about his high salary, but the decision did not address this criterion, considering it irrelevant to the outcome due to the failure to meet other criteria .
Key Points from the Decision
- Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner’s company received a recognition award, but the petitioner himself was not the award recipient, which is required for this criterion .
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: The submitted articles did not qualify as major media, and many were missing necessary details such as the date and author .
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: Letters highlighted the petitioner’s entrepreneurial achievements but failed to demonstrate a significant impact on the field as a whole .
- Participation as a Judge: Not addressed by the petitioner, hence considered waived .
- Membership in Associations: Letters from organizations did not sufficiently detail the membership criteria or confirm evaluation by recognized experts .
- Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner raised due process concerns about this criterion, but it was deemed irrelevant to the appeal’s outcome .
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Recommendation: Praised the petitioner’s entrepreneurial achievements but lacked specifics on how these contributions significantly impacted the field .
- Articles: Submitted articles from Brazilian newspapers did not meet the standard for major media or trade publications and lacked necessary details
- Awards Documentation: An award received by the petitioner’s company, which did not satisfy the individual recognition requirement .
Conclusion
- Final Determination: Denied
- Reasoning: The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the required criteria. The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate extraordinary ability or significant impact in the field beyond personal business achievements .
Next Steps
- Recommendations: The petitioner should gather more substantial and specific evidence to address each of the required criteria comprehensively. This includes individual awards, published materials in major media, documented original contributions of major significance, detailed membership criteria from associations, and evidence of high remuneration if relevant to future petitions.
This structured analysis provides a clear overview of the case decision and offers guidance for similar petitions in the EB1 Extraordinary Ability category.
