Date of Decision: October 3, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Furniture Business Executive
Field: Executive Management and Woodworking Business
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner did not satisfy any of the claimed criteria, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
- The petitioner submitted three certificates of recognition from events but failed to establish that these awards were for excellence in the field of executive management or woodworking. The certificates were granted for participation rather than merit-based achievements.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role for Organizations or Establishments with a Distinguished Reputation:
- The petitioner claimed leadership roles in his furniture business and the Hunarmand Association but failed to demonstrate that these roles were critical to distinguished organizations. The evidence of the organization’s reputation and the petitioner’s role within it was insufficient.
- High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration:
- The petitioner provided a letter from his company stating his salary but did not include comparative wage data or corroborating evidence such as tax returns or contracts. As such, this criterion was not satisfied.
Key Points from the Decision
Award Evidence:
- Certificates provided were for participation and did not demonstrate recognition of excellence.
Leadership Roles:
- The petitioner’s role as CEO of his business and member of the Hunarmand Association lacked evidence of significant contributions or critical impact on the organizations.
Remuneration Evidence:
- The petitioner’s claimed salary lacked corroborating evidence and comparative data to demonstrate it as significantly high relative to peers in the field.
Final Merits Determination:
- The AAO concluded that the petitioner’s accomplishments did not rise to the level of sustained national or international acclaim required for the EB-1 classification.
Supporting Documentation
Award Evidence: Certificates of recognition from events, insufficiently demonstrated as merit-based or nationally/internationally recognized.
Leadership Evidence: Letters of recommendation and documentation of roles, lacking corroboration of critical contributions to distinguished organizations.
Salary Evidence: A letter stating the petitioner’s salary, unsupported by comparative data or additional evidence.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to meet any of the regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The evidence provided did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of executive management and woodworking business.
