Date of Decision: FEB. 5, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Financial Advisor
Field: Business
Nationality: Philippines
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None: The Petitioner did not meet any of the required criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards for Excellence in the Field: The Petitioner submitted various award certificates, but they lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate national or international recognition for excellence in the field. Some certificates appeared incomplete or lacked necessary signatures and verification.
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed eligibility based on employment with certain companies but failed to provide evidence that these positions required outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts.
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner provided letters inviting her to judge events; however, there was no evidence of actual participation as a judge or relevance to her field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The recommendation letters submitted highlighted the Petitioner’s contributions to specific companies but did not establish their impact on the broader field of business.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner claimed to have authored articles in major media but did not provide evidence of publication or scholarly value.
Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions: The Petitioner claimed her webpage satisfied this criterion but did not provide supporting documentation or evidence of exhibition.
Leading or Critical Role in Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner submitted letters indicating leadership roles in companies, but the details were insufficient to prove significant impact or the distinguished reputation of these organizations.
High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration: The Petitioner provided a letter about her salary without specific details or sufficient evidence to compare her earnings to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner provided certificates for various awards, including “Top Grosser of the Month” and “Employee of the Month.” However, the awards were not substantiated as nationally or internationally recognized, nor were they convincingly linked to excellence in her field.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner cited employment with a company as evidence of outstanding achievement, but the letter from the company did not demonstrate that such achievements were a prerequisite for employment.
Participation as a Judge:
Letters inviting the Petitioner to judge debates and business campaigns were provided. However, there was no evidence of her actual participation or the relevance of these events to her field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Recommendation letters praised the Petitioner’s contributions to her company but failed to show an impact on the broader business field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
No evidence of published scholarly articles was submitted.
Leading or Critical Role:
Letters indicated the Petitioner held leadership roles but did not provide details on the significance of her impact or the distinguished reputation of the organizations.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner’s salary was described vaguely in a letter, without sufficient details to establish it as high relative to others in her field.
Supporting Documentation
- Various award certificates and letters of recognition.
- Letters from former managers and colleagues attesting to the Petitioner’s dedication and contributions.
- Invitations to judge events, though lacking evidence of actual participation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner failed to meet the required evidentiary criteria for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The provided documentation did not establish national or international recognition or significant impact in her field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence and addressing the deficiencies noted in the decision before reapplying or seeking alternative immigration options.
