Date of Decision: June 26, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: General and Operations Manager
Field: E-commerce Operations
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner provided evidence of serving as a judge in their field, satisfying this criterion.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role: Documentation supported the petitioner’s critical role in an organization with a distinguished reputation.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards:
- The award presented was limited to recognition from the petitioner’s employer and did not demonstrate national or international recognition.
- Membership in Associations:
- Membership in the claimed associations did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Articles submitted did not meet the evidentiary standards for scholarly publications or appear in major trade or professional media.
- High Salary or Remuneration:
- Evidence of remuneration fell below the 67th percentile for the geographic area and occupational field.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Contributions were significant to the petitioner’s employer but lacked evidence of broader impact in the e-commerce field.
Key Points from the Decision
Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner provided sufficient evidence of evaluating work within the e-commerce domain.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner’s role in a prominent e-commerce company satisfied this criterion.
Awards and Recognition:
The petitioner’s award was employer-specific and lacked national or international significance.
Authorship of Articles:
The submitted articles lacked sufficient circulation or impact to qualify as major media.
High Salary Evidence:
The petitioner’s salary was documented but did not demonstrate extraordinary remuneration compared to peers in the same field and geographic area.
Original Contributions:
Contributions, such as developing protocols and metrics, were impactful at the organizational level but did not extend to the broader industry.
Supporting Documentation
Judging Activities: Proof of serving on evaluation panels.
Leadership Evidence: Documentation of a critical role in a well-regarded organization.
Awards Documentation: Insufficient to establish national or international acclaim.
Authorship: Articles published in industry-related media but lacked prominence.
Remuneration Evidence: Salary data was below the required threshold for extraordinary ability classification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met two evidentiary criteria but failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of at least three. The record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of their field.
