Date of Decision: January 10, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Market Research Analyst and Communication Specialist
Field: Corporate Communications and Market Research
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
- None
Criteria Not Met
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)): The petitioner relied on a student award from her institution. USCIS policy clarifies that scholastic awards are generally insufficient unless widely recognized in the field. The petitioner failed to show that the award had national or international recognition outside the issuing institution.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)): The petitioner claimed her 2023 master’s thesis constituted a major contribution, supported by an expert letter. While the thesis was praised for potential future impact, the evidence showed promise rather than established, field-wide significance as of the filing date. USCIS requires demonstrated existing impact, not prospective benefits.
- Membership in Associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)): The petitioner conceded that her evidence did not satisfy this requirement.
- Judging the Work of Others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)): The petitioner conceded that she did not meet this requirement.
- Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)): The petitioner conceded that she did not meet this requirement.
- Other Claimed Criteria (e.g., Authorship of Scholarly Articles, Leading or Critical Role): USCIS reserved judgment, as the petitioner had already failed to meet three criteria numerically.
Key Points from the Decision
- Scholastic Awards Insufficient: Awards tied to an institution must demonstrate broader recognition in the field, which was lacking here.
- Thesis Impact Prospective Only: The thesis offered potential contributions but did not show proven, field-wide impact at the time of filing.
- Criteria Waived: Several criteria were expressly waived by the petitioner on appeal.
- Threshold Not Met: The petitioner failed to demonstrate at least three criteria, making further evaluation unnecessary.
Final Merits Determination
Because the petitioner did not establish three qualifying criteria, the AAO dismissed the appeal. The evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as required for EB-1 classification.
Supporting Documentation
- Awards Evidence: Student award from institution, lacking proof of national/international recognition.
- Contribution Evidence: 2023 master’s thesis with expert support letter, emphasizing potential but not established impact.
- Conceded Criteria: Membership, judging, and display of work.
- Other Evidence: Authorship and leadership claims reserved, as the threshold was not reached.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to demonstrate at least three of the required regulatory criteria, and the evidence provided reflected potential rather than proven significance.
