Date of Decision: March 13, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Hospitality Entrepreneur/Bar Professional
Field: Hospitality and Bartending
Nationality: Armenian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judge of Others’ Work: The Petitioner demonstrated that he served as a judge for others’ work in his field, satisfying the regulatory requirements for this criterion.
- Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner held a leading or critical role in his profession, meeting the necessary criteria.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner claimed to have received two awards, but the evidence did not demonstrate that these awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
- Membership in Associations: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his membership in the International Bartenders Association (IBA) required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
- Published Material About the Petitioner: The submitted articles and materials did not adequately meet the criteria as they lacked necessary details such as title, date, and author, and were not primarily about the Petitioner.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of original contributions that had major significance in the bartending field.
- Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that his work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The Petitioner did not establish that the awards he received were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. The evidence provided, including letters and articles, contained inconsistencies and lacked necessary corroboration.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Several articles were submitted, but they either lacked essential details or were not focused on the Petitioner’s work. Additionally, some materials were about the general field rather than the Petitioner specifically.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Reference letters praised the Petitioner’s leadership and contributions but did not specify how these contributions were of major significance to the field. The evidence suggested a positive influence within Armenia, but not a significant impact on the bartending field globally.
Membership in Associations:
- The Petitioner’s guild membership in the IBA did not meet the criterion as it did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts in the field.
Display of Work:
- The Petitioner attended various events and conferences, but there was no evidence to show that his work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Supporting Documentation
- Awards and Certificates: Included letters and certificates related to competitions and participation in master classes.
- Published Articles: Several articles from various publications, though lacking in title, date, or author details.
- Reference Letters: Letters from vice presidents of the Armenian Bartenders’ Association praising the Petitioner’s contributions.
- Event Participation: Evidence of attendance and support at various field-related events and conferences.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed as the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning:
- The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten criteria.
- The evidence provided did not establish the necessary sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate that the Petitioner was among the top in his field.
Next Steps:
- It is recommended that the Petitioner gather more substantial and corroborated evidence to meet the required criteria if considering reapplying.
