Date of Decision: November 2, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Hotel Resort
Field: Business
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Criteria 1: Leading or Critical Role
Description: The petitioner provided evidence of the beneficiary’s role as General Manager/Managing Director at a distinguished hotel, demonstrating a leading and critical role in the organization. However, the petitioner did not sufficiently corroborate the honors received by the hotels under the beneficiary’s management.
Criteria 2: High Salary or Remuneration
Description: The petitioner submitted evidence showing the beneficiary earned a significantly higher salary compared to other lodging managers in the field, satisfying the high salary criterion.
Criteria Not Met
Criteria 1: National or International Awards
Description: The beneficiary’s employer, not the beneficiary, received the awards mentioned, which do not meet the requirements for individual recognition.
Criteria 2: Membership in Associations
Description: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s memberships required outstanding achievements or were determined by recognized experts in the field.
Criteria 3: Published Materials
Description: The submitted articles did not include the required author information or complete translations, and there was no proof that the publications were major trade publications.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
Summary of findings: The awards cited were received by the beneficiary’s employer, not by the beneficiary himself, which does not meet the evidentiary criteria for individual recognition.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
Summary of findings: The articles provided lacked author information and complete translations, failing to meet the regulatory requirements for published material about the beneficiary.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
Summary of findings: No specific evidence was provided to support this criterion.
Participation as a Judge
Summary of findings: No specific evidence was provided to support this criterion.
Membership in Associations
Summary of findings: The memberships cited did not require outstanding achievements or were not judged by recognized experts, failing to meet the regulatory criteria.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
Summary of findings: No specific evidence was provided to support this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed
Summary of findings: While evidence was provided of the beneficiary’s leading role, it was not sufficiently corroborated to meet the criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
Summary of findings: The beneficiary’s salary was significantly higher than others in the field, meeting this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Job Description and Organizational Chart: Demonstrating the beneficiary’s role as General Manager.
- Letters from Industry Peers: Supporting the beneficiary’s contributions and roles.
- Income Statements: Showing the beneficiary’s salary and benefits.
- Published Articles: Announcements of the beneficiary’s appointments, lacking complete translations and author information.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the initial evidence requirements or meet three of the ten regulatory criteria.
Next Steps: The petitioner may seek further legal advice or consider reapplying with additional evidence to support the criteria for extraordinary ability.
