Date of Decision: September 13, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Journalist
Field: Automotive Journalism
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 met only one criterion.
Criteria Met:
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
- The petitioner demonstrated his leadership role within the Brazilian Automotive Press Association, which was acknowledged as meeting this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
- The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field of journalism.
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- Articles submitted failed to meet the standard for published material about the petitioner. For instance, while the petitioner’s name appeared in Falha de São Paulo, the article primarily credited him for photography rather than profiling his journalistic work.
- Judging the Work of Others:
- The petitioner served as a jury member for awards such as the ABIAUTO and Top Car TV awards. However, the AAO concluded that judging car features did not qualify as judging the work of others in the petitioner’s field of journalism.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner submitted evidence of publishing a book and numerous articles. However, the AAO determined that the contributions, while notable, did not demonstrate major significance within the field of journalism.
- High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration:
- The petitioner provided salary evidence from his work as a “Parliamentary Assistant III.” However, the AAO found the comparisons insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner’s salary was high relative to others in the same field.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Material and Judging Evidence:
- Media coverage and judging activities did not meet the regulatory requirements for evidence of extraordinary ability in journalism.
Book Contribution:
- While the petitioner’s book on municipal history was acknowledged as an original contribution, it did not demonstrate major significance in the field of journalism.
Final Merits Determination Not Conducted:
- As the petitioner did not meet at least three criteria, the AAO did not proceed to the final merits determination.
Supporting Documentation
Leadership Evidence: Proof of a leadership role in the Brazilian Automotive Press Association.
Published Material Evidence: Articles and media coverage, insufficient to meet the regulatory requirements.
Judging Evidence: Jury participation in automotive awards, deemed unrelated to journalism.
Contribution Evidence: A published book and articles, not demonstrated as major contributions.
Salary Evidence: Earnings as a parliamentary assistant, not established as significantly high relative to peers.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met one regulatory criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, the evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of automotive journalism.
